• MSN
  • Hotmail
  • More
    • Autos
    • My MSN
    • Video
    • Careers & Jobs
    • Personals
    • Weather
    • Delish
    • Quotes
    • White Pages
    • Games
    • Real Estate
    • Wonderwall
    • Horoscopes
    • Shopping
    • Yellow Pages
    • Local Edition
    • Traffic
    • Feedback
    • Maps & Directions
    • Travel
    • Full MSN Index
  • Bing
  • NBCNews.com
  • TODAY
  • Nightly News
  • Rock Center
  • Meet the Press
  • Dateline
  • msnbc
  • Breaking News
  • Newsvine
  • Home
  • US
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Health
  • Tech
  • Science
  • Travel
  • Local
  • Weather
Advertise | AdChoices
  • Recommended: House GOP: Don't grab an asteroid — let's put bases on moon and Mars
  • Recommended: Sally Ride and Neil Armstrong: Space icons get new round of remembrance
  • Recommended: Space station crew opens Europe's Einstein cargo ship after fungus flap
  • Recommended: NASA wants you ... to join Grand Challenge to hunt down asteroids

Quantum fluctuations in science, space and society, from quarks to Hubble and Mars. Served up by Alan Boyle, NBC News Digital science editor. E-mail Alan, or connect via Facebook, Twitter or Google+.

  • ↓ About this blog
  • ↓ Archives
    • Icons Email E-mail updates
    • Icons Twitter Follow on Twitter
    • Icons Feed Subscribe to RSS
  • 30
    Apr
    2013
    10:37pm, EDT

    Six years after zero-G flight, Stephen Hawking is still up for a space trip

    Physicist Stephen Hawking confirms his non-stop zest for life and says he's signed up for a ride into suborbital space aboard Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. NBCNews.com's Dara Brown reports.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    Follow @b0yle


    It's been six long years since world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking got a taste of weightlessness during a zero-G airplane flight from NASA's Kennedy Space Center — but he still wants to feel the real deal aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo rocket plane.

    The 71-year-old Hawking has been living with neurogenerative disease for decades, but his illness hasn't kept him from taking on adventures that might tax younger, fitter humans. On Tuesday, during a London talk sponsored by the charity Breathe On UK, Hawking noted that he has required assistance with his breathing since his tracheotomy in 1985.

    "Being on a ventilator has not curbed my lifestyle," he told the audience, using his instantly recognizable computer-generated voice. "I have been to Brussels, the Isle of Man, Geneva, Canada, California ... and I hope to go into space with Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. It is possible to have quality of life on a ventilator."


    That's music to the ears of Breathe On UK, which was created to help kids who need long-term breathing assistance. It's also a compliment to Virgin Galactic, which put SpaceShipTwo through its supersonic paces for the first time this week. If all the tests go right, SpaceShipTwo could be taking passengers on suborbital space trips as early as next year.

    Richard Branson, Virgin Galactic's billionaire founder, promised to consider Hawking for one of those trips even before the good doctor took his ride into weightlessness in 2007. The invitation still stands, according to George Whitesides, the company's president and CEO.

    "Richard and the team would love to welcome him on board," Whitesides told NBC News on Tuesday.

    Hawking's health is the big issue for any future spaceflight, just as it was for the zero-G flight years ago. The physicist would have to be fully checked out, and even if he was cleared for takeoff, medical staff would almost certainly have to ride along. Deceleration could be the toughest part of the trip. SpaceShipTwo's flight profile calls for up to 6 G's of force on the way down. That's more force than most space shuttle astronauts have felt, and it ranks right up there with the world's rockiest roller-coaster rides.

    If Hawking were to fly into space sometime in the next few years, he'd take the No. 2 spot on the list of the world's oldest astronauts. The only person older would be senator-astronaut John Glenn, who flew on the space shuttle Discovery at the age of 77 and is now 91 years old.

    Six years ago, Hawking declared, "Space, here I come!" Should he keep that dream alive, or should he focus on earthly adventures instead? Feel free to register your opinion in our informal survey, and weigh in with your comments below.

    Follow @CosmicLog

    More about Stephen Hawking:

    • Hawking lays out his case for a godless big bang
    • Stephen Hawking visits LA stem cell lab
    • Cosmic Log archive on Stephen Hawking

    Alan Boyle is NBCNews.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. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.

    28 comments

    I'm on a ventilator and I try not let it slow me down. Go for it Hawking!

    Show more
    Explore related topics: space, featured, britain, stephen-hawking, virgin-galactic, spaceshiptwo
  • 5
    Jul
    2012
    11:53pm, EDT

    Higgs' big loser: Why Stephen Hawking is such a bad gambler

    CERN file

    Famed physicist Stephen Hawking visits the Large Hadron Collider's underground tunnel in 2006. He bet against the discovery of the Higgs boson but is now willing to pay up.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    Follow @b0yle


    When it comes to betting on cosmic outcomes like the discovery of the Higgs boson, British physicist Stephen Hawking is a three-time loser. But there's a good reason for that.

    Hawking's latest loss was to Gordon Kane, a theoretical physicist at the University of Michigan who worked out some of the ways that the Higgs boson could be detected in a particle-smasher like the Large Hadron Collider. About 10 years ago, Kane was discussing some of the issues while he and Hawking were together at a physics conference.

    "Stephen interrupted, and said he would like to bet me that there was no Higgs boson," Kane recalled today. It took a while to work out the conditions of the $100 bet, and at one point things looked so dim for the search that Kane sent Hawking a check, according to The Detroit News.

    But this week, when researchers at the LHC announced that a subatomic particle matching the Higgs boson's general description had been discovered, it was Hawking's turn to concede the bet. "It seems I have just lost $100," he told the BBC's Pallab Ghosh.


    Waiting for the check
    Kane told me he's heard from several third parties that Hawking is acknowledging his loss, but said Hawking himself "hasn't sent me anything yet." He figures that Hawking will eventually make good on the gambling debt.

    "The important thing is the discovery of the Higgs," Kane said. "But it's fun to win a bet from Stephen, and I'm guessing he doesn't mind losing a little money."

    This isn't the first time Hawking has lost a small-stakes, high-profile bet on a scientific proposition.

    Back in 1975, he bet Caltech physicist Kip Thorne that there was no black hole at the center of the X-ray source known as Cygnus X-1. By 1998, he conceded that the black hole was there, and got Thorne a year's subscription to Penthouse magazine as a payoff.

    In 1997, Thorne and Hawking bet Caltech's John Preskill that information is completely lost when something falls into a black hole. But in 2004, Hawking changed his mind and said that information could conceivably leak out of a black hole. Hawking paid up by sending Preskill the repository of information he requested: a baseball encyclopedia. At last report, Thorne had not yet conceded.

    There's another wager still pending: Hawking is betting that primordial gravitational waves will be detected, resulting in the confirmation of inflationary big-bang theory. The Perimeter Institute's Neil Turok, a proponent of the cyclic model of cosmic origins, is betting against him.

    "If these gravitational waves are seen, they will instantly disprove our model," Turok told Cambridge professor Alan Macfarlane. The terms of the bet, however, are still under negotiation.

    0-for-3 record
    So, as far as we know, Hawking is 0-for-3, with one bet still up in the air. That led the BBC's Ghosh to joke today in a Twitter update that "research effort could be saved if we knew what other bets Prof. Hawking has placed and assume he'll lose." The only bet that I'm sure Hawking has won is the poker hand he played on "Star Trek: The Next Generation." And that was written into the script.

    The opening scene from an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" in which Data plays poker with Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

    Watch on YouTube

    Is Hawking really that bad at anticipating future developments in physics? Not really. The guy just bets with his heart, not with his head.

    In the case of Cygnus X-1, for instance, he was actually glad to lose the wager. "This was a form of insurance policy for me," he explained in "A Brief History of Time," his bestselling book. "I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet."

    The bet about the fate of information in black holes was a true cosmic conundrum, and Hawking decided to go along with the more conservative of the two alternatives, even if it meant buying an encyclopedia for Preskill. If Hawking stuck to his guns, he would have to maintain that the information in black holes disappeared into other universes.

    "I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes," he said in 2004. "If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state."

    Hoping for the unexpected
    As for the Higgs boson, Hawking was hoping that there'd be a less orthodox and more elegant mechanism to explain how it is that some particles have mass while others don't. Finding the Standard Model Higgs boson, and nothing else, would be a disappointing outcome — as fellow physicist Stephen Wolfram pointed out in a blog posting today. So once again, Hawking was betting with his heart.

    "If the decay and other interactions of this particle are as we expect, that will be strong evidence for the so-called Standard Model of particle physics, the theory that explains all our experiments so far," Hawking said. "This is an important result, and should earn Peter Higgs the Nobel Prize. But it is a pity, in a way, because the great advances in physics have come from experiments that gave results we didn't expect."

    Follow @CosmicLog

    If it turns out that the particle revealed this week is a non-Standard Model Higgs boson, Hawking might still be able to hang onto his $100, and the cosmos will get that much more mysterious. But in any case, Kane is moving on to the next big thing: supersymmetry, the idea that every one of the subatomic particles we've detected to date has a weird twin we haven't yet been able to see. Such a concept could explain the nature of dark matter, which accounts for far more of the universe than the ordinary matter we see around us.

    As strange as it sounds, Kane thinks it's possible to find evidence of supersymmetry — and he's willing to put his money where his mouth is.

    "I'd love to have bets on supersymmetry," he told me, "but no one will take them."

    Update for 2:30 p.m. ET July 6: Kane told me that it was premature to say what he'd spend the $100 on, but in a Reuters report, he said that "all funds go toward research." He also said that winning the bet was a very nice frosting on the cake" for this week's boson discovery.

    Reuters also quotes Scottish theorist Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who came up with the idea behind the field and the particle that now bears his name, as saying that he was tipped off about the discovery the night before Wednesday's announcement, during a champagne dinner with CERN researchers. On the flight home from the event,  fellow physicist Alan Walker offered Higgs a glass of Prosecco sparkling wine — but Walker told Reuters that Higgs said, "I'd rather have a beer." 

    More on the Higgs hoopla:

    • The lighter side of the Higgs boson
    • Higgs boson explained in (more than) a minute
    • Milestone in Higgs quest: Scientists find new particle
    • The Higgs boson made simple
    • Cartoons visualize the Higgs boson

    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.

    159 comments

    Thank you for this article. People always quote Hawking as if everything he says is the Gospel Truth. However, he can be wrong just like everyone else. Loss for Hawking, Win for the Physics community.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: featured, physics, lhc, stephen-hawking, higgs-boson, particle-physics
  • 25
    Jun
    2012
    2:52pm, EDT

    How researchers hacked into Stephen Hawking's brain

    Ted S. Warren / AP

    To produce the words for text or speech, British physicist Stephen Hawking currently uses an infrared sensor mounted on his eyeglasses, visible here during an appearance this month in Seattle. The sensor picks up twitches from his cheek, which are translated into the desired letters or words. Hawking and neuroscientist Philip Low are experimenting with a system that can translate brain waves directly into text and speech.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    Follow @b0yle


    After months of tweaking, researchers are finally ready to show off a high-tech headband that can translate Stephen Hawking's brain waves into speech — providing what could eventually become an easier avenue for the paralyzed British physicist and many others to share their deep thoughts.

    The system, developed by San Diego-based NeuroVigil and known as iBrain, uses a head-mounted receiver the size of a matchbox to pick up different types of brain waves. iBrain employs a computer algorithm called SPEARS to analyze the brain emanations and encode them for a text-based speech reader. Philip Low, NeuroVigil's founder, chairman and CEO, is to present the latest results from his work with Hawking on July 7 at a Cambridge conference on consciousness.


    "I haven't discussed doing a demonstration with Stephen, but we could do that, of course," Low told me today. During the conference, Low will be showing video clips of Hawking using the iBrain to communicate.

    For decades, Hawking has been coping with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a degenerative nerve disease that has left the theoretical physicist confined to a wheelchair and unable to move even his fingers. To write or speak, he currently uses an infrared sensor system mounted on his eyeglasses: His cheek twitches are read by the sensor to control a wheelchair-mounted computer system that slowly encodes the patterns of those twitches. It can take a half-hour for Hawking to twitch out a couple of sentences in response to a question.

    In an abstract prepared for next month's presentation, Low and Hawking describe how they worked out their technique for the iBrain system. Hawking (who is described as a "high-functioning 70-year-old ALS patient" in the abstract) was told to try moving one of his hands or feet — for example, flexing his foot or scrunching his hand into a ball. The limbs didn't move, of course, but just thinking about trying to move them generated readable brain-wave patterns.

    "The subject's brain activity demonstrated distinct broad-spectrum pulses extending to the gamma and ultra-high gamma ranges," the researchers wrote. "Such pulses were present in the absence of actual movement, and absent when the subject was not attempting motion."

    The abstract said Hawking's brain also buzzed with alpha brain waves when he closed his eyes, as expected. Alpha waves are associated with wakeful relaxation, and are probably familiar to anyone who's undergone biofeedback training. Gamma waves, in contrast, are associated with increased attention — and in the past have been linked to activities ranging from running to learning.

    Lots of possibilities
    The fact that Hawking's brain signals could be read reliably is a good sign, not only for one of the world's best-known scientists but for hundreds of thousands of others around the world. Low and Hawking say their work "opens the possibility to link intended movements to a library of words and convert them into speech, thus providing ALS sufferers with communication tools more dependent on the brain than on the body."

    Low told me that the brainwave-reading device could be used to control prosthetic devices "to give ALS sufferers mobility" — sort of like a real-life version of the Stephen Hawking robotic exoskeleton proposed in an Onion parody 15 years ago.

    The iBrain device could have other applications, such as diagnosing sleep apnea, studying autism and monitoring other brain conditions. It's already been used in a clinical trial to monitor the effects of experimental drugs on brain activity. The U.S. military is also looking into how the device can help treat traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder, which are big issues for combat veterans. Direct brain-to-speech communication, however, represents the highest-profile application, particularly when Stephen Hawking is involved.

    "We'd like to find a way to bypass his body, pretty much hack his brain," The Telegraph quoted Low as saying.

    The key question for Hawking is whether iBrain represents an improvement over the system he currently has. Back in April, the professor told The New York Times that the project hadn't quite reached that point. "At the moment I think my cheek switch is faster ... but should the position change I will try Philip Low's system," he wrote in an email sent by an assistant.

    In that quote, Low said Hawking was talking about brain-computer interfaces in general, rather than specifically about iBrain. "What we are seeing is in fact an immediate response, so the question is going to be to productize this, so that he can communicate reliably should he lose control of his cheek muscles," he said.

    TEDMED via YouTube

    Neuroscientist Philip Low (at right) demonstrates how the iBrain device can send brain-wave readings to a cellphone with an subject who's wearing the headband (at left) during a TEDMED 2009 presentation. Click on the image to watch the YouTube clip.

    Personal quest
    Low said the iBrain project was already moving on to Version 2.0, and the iBrain 3 device is due to be built next year. "That will be about the size of a U.S. quarter," he told me. "People will be able to check their brain activity much like you or I can check our blood pressure."

    The 32-year-old, Vienna-born researcher's company has come a long way since its founding, which Low says he initially financed by putting $240,000 on his credit card. Someday, he hopes brain-monitoring systems will be used to pick up the signs of neurological problems early enough to do something about them. For Low, this is not just business. It's personal.

    "I would have loved to see this 20 years ago, when my father suffered from a side effect of a commonly used sleep drug," he told me. "He threatened someone with a weapon ... a gun, actually. And it destroyed our family."

    Follow @CosmicLog

    His father was eventually pardoned, but it took a long time to put everything back together. That experience led Low to look into the neurological basis of sleep, including experiments with bird brains. That was what led him to come up with the SPEARS algorithm in the first place.

    "It's very ironic that an algorithm I initially developed to analyze the brain patterns of birds has found its way to dealing with Stephen Hawking's brain patterns, the U.S. military and autistic children," he told me. 

    More about Stephen Hawking:

    • Stephen Hawking keeps his eyes on the prize
    • What's on Dr. Hawking's desk? A guided tour
    • Stephen Hawking's biggest mystery? Women
    • Hawking says God's not needed. So?

    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.

    121 comments

    I am hoping that within the next couple years, science makes a fully functional cyborg that they can just throw Mr. Hawking's brain into. We need to keep it around.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: technology, science, featured, stephen-hawking
  • 17
    Jun
    2012
    4:15pm, EDT

    Stephen Hawking is keeping his eyes on the prize ... Nobel Prize, that is

    Alan Boyle / msnbc.com

    British physicist Stephen Hawking jokes about the future discoveries that could earn him a Nobel Prize.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    Follow @b0yle


    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.

    164 comments

    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.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: health, featured, medicine, seattle, physics, cosmology, paleontology, stephen-hawking
  • 20
    Jan
    2012
    6:54pm, EST

    Stephen Hawking's curios explained

    Sarah Lee / The Science Museum via Reuters

    Physicist Stephen Hawking is seen in his office at the University of Cambridge in this photo taken for London's Science Museum in December. The picture is part of a series of photographic portraits commissioned by the Science Museum to celebrate Hawking's 70th birthday on Jan. 8. The pictures are part of an exhibit at the musem celebrating Hawking's life and achievements.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    Follow @b0yle




    The cosmic curios of the world's best-known physicist went on display today at a London science museum, chronicling the amazing 70 years of Stephen Hawking's life. Over the decades, the quadriplegic genius has popped up in so many pop-culture settings that some of those curios require a little explanation.

    That's what we found when we ran a picture of the professor in his Cambridge office as the first installment of a "Where in the Cosmos" series on the Cosmic Log Facebook page. There's such a generous assortment of gewgaws that it's a wonder Hawking gets anything done.


    Stephen Hawking sets the tone for a Science Museum exhibit reviewing his life.

    Watch on YouTube

    It turns out that the scene was arranged to show off Hawking's stuff for the exhibit at the Science Museum in London. Take the bronze statue on the desk, for example. I was particularly intrigued by the out-of-focus statue because it seemed to hold such a prominent place in the picture.

    "I believe the statue is of the pope," Tracey Walters wrote. "But the picture is kinda fuzzy, so who knows which one?" Others wondered if it was the theologian Erasmus, or maybe King Midas.

    Hawking's longtime executive assistant, Judith Croasdell, straightened out the mystery in an email.

    "The statue is the Fonseca Prize which Professor Hawking received in Santiago de Compestela, in 2008," she wrote. "It normally sits not on Stephen's desk but on the window shelf because it is heavy — 2 kilograms worth of bronze. Obviously it was put on the desk for the photographers."

    A less weighty curio is far easier to recognize: It's a plastic action figure of Hawking as he appeared in an episode of "The Simpsons," the animated show that the physicist has called the best thing American television has to offer. The figurine is festooned with the helicopter top and the spring-loaded boxing glove that played their part in the "Simpsons" plot. In the distance, you can just make out a picture on the wall that shows Hawking encountering Maggie Simpson and other characters from the show. Watch this YouTube clip to learn more about Hawking's "Simpsons" connection.

    Other items include a little toy computer with sticky notes, a space shuttle model, and a crystal globe. "The crystal globe is a present given by Discovery and shows a map of the world," Croasdell says. "Carved on the globe are the words 'What is essential is invisible to the eye,' [from] Saint-Exupery."

    There's a humidifier on his desk that holds an assortment of seashells. The blackboard you see in the picture above is covered with equations scribbled by his students. Another blackboard in the room, not seen here, that has mathematical in-jokes written on it.

    Sarah Lee / Science Museum via Reuters

    Another picture commissioned by the Science Museum shows Stephen Hawking with a picture of Marilyn Monroe looming over him.

    Another photo of Hawking's office, taken from a different perspective, gives prominent play to his picture of Marilyn Monroe, who is one of the professor's favorite personages from the past. "If I had a time machine, I'd drop in on Marilyn Monroe in her prime," he once mused. The room's walls are covered with flyers as well as photos from Hawking's trips around the world.

    To find out more about these items and others in Hawking's office, check out Roger Highfield's profile of the professor in The Telegraph.

    The photos are just one little piece of the Science Museum's one-room exhibition: Museumgoers can also see pictures of Hawking before his struggle with motor neuron disease, as well as mementos that touch upon the highlights of his long career. The Science Museum's inventor in residence, Mark Champkins, created a "Black Hole Light" in Hawking's honor that uses a swirl of neon tubing to evoke the path photons would take as they fell into a black hole.

    Here's a sampling of the sights:

    AP

    The Science Museum displays a selection of books and papers by British physicist Stephen Hawking. His best-known work, "A Brief History of Time," has been translated into more than 30 languages. The object at right that looks like a model of Saturn is actually the 2010 Cosmos Award, which Hawking received from the Planetary Society. Hawking's Fonseca Prize and Prince of Asturias Award are also on display.

    Alastair Grant / AP

    A diagram by British physicist Stephen Hawking, titled "Black Hole and Unpredictability," is one of the papers on display at the Science Museum.

    Alastair Grant / AP

    A marked script from a "Simpsons" episode that aired in 1999 highlights Stephen Hawking's lines, including this one: "Silence! I don't need anyone to talk for me except this voicebox." The Stephen Hawking action figure has a helicopter-style wheelchair and a boxing glove, just like the character on the show.

    Update for 12:45 a.m. ET Jan. 21: When the Planetary Society's Charlene Anderson took a look at the pictures above, she saw a familiar sight — the planet-shaped Cosmos Award that Hawking received from the society in 2010. Check out her posting to the Planetary Society's blog, in which she expresses her surprise and pleasure at seeing the society's award in such a place of honor.

    Next on 'Where in the Cosmos': Today's picture puzzle focuses on a far-out subject that's been the subject of research recently. I haven't written anything about it yet, but next week I'll fill you in on why it's significant. One of our Cosmic Log friends has already figured out what the picture shows, and as a reward I'll be sending her a copy of John Gribbin's latest book, "Alone in the Universe." To join the conversation, check out the "Where in the Cosmos" posting on the Cosmic Log Facebook page.

    More about Stephen Hawking's life and work:

    • Stephen Hawking misses 70th-birthday party
    • What mystifies Stephen Hawking? Women
    • Hawking defies crippling disease at 70
    • Hawking's quantum universe

    The exhibit celebrating Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday runs through April 9 at the Science Museum in London.

    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 or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.

    81 comments

    Why is it when an Atheist says anything you say oh how deep and wonderful. But if a Cristian looks at the Heavens and feels such awe, you call us zealots? I study the planets and stars and frankly,it's also a wonderful feeling to see what our creator has done.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: science, featured, physics, museums, stephen-hawking, witco, where-in-the-cosmos
  • 5
    Jan
    2012
    5:58pm, EST

    What mystifies Dr. Hawking? Women

    Sarah Lee / Science Museum via Reuters

    Physicist Stephen Hawking has decorated his office at the University of Cambridge with "Simpsons" memorabilia - and a prominent portrait of Marilyn Monroe.

    By Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

    Follow @b0yle



    As famed physicist Stephen Hawking turns 70, the subject that most occupies his thoughts is not how the universe arose from nothing, or how he's been able to live with neurodegenerative disease for so long. Here's what he thinks about most: "Women. They are a complete mystery."

    That's the bottom line from New Scientist's interview with Hawking, timed to coincide with this weekend's birthday celebration at Cambridge. The theorist is almost completely paralyzed due to his decades-long struggle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, and had to provide his answers by laboriously twitching his cheek to operate a computerized speech-translation system.


    Hawking also listed what he saw as his "biggest blunder in science" (his now-repudiated insistence that information was destroyed in black holes), the most exciting development in physics during his career (the discovery of the big bang's imprint in cosmic microwave radiation) and the potential discovery that would do the most to revolutionize our understanding of the cosmos (discovery of supersymmetric particles at the Large Hadron Collider).

    But it's his brief comment on women that attracted the most attention: How could it be that a scientist who has plumbed the deepest mysteries of the cosmos finds himself mystified by women?

    Based on the view most folks have of geniuses, how could it not be?

    The saga of the super-smart professor who is flummoxed by interpersonal relations, particularly with the opposite sex, is at least as old as Sigmund Freud (who famously wondered, "What does a woman want?"), Jerry Lewis' fictional "Nutty Professor" and the stereotype we have of Albert Einstein. It's as up to date as the TV astrophysicist on "The Big Bang Theory" who can't say a word to women unless he's under the influence.

    Somehow, folks get a satisfying sense of karma from the idea that geniuses are socially stupid. But the stereotype doesn't really hold true, particularly in Hawking's case.

    Like the real-life Einstein, Hawking has had an active romantic life, marked by two marriages. (Einstein's second marriage ended with the death of his wife and cousin Elsa; Hawking's ended in an ugly divorce.) Hawking's disease does not affect his sexual ability or his potency, and the fact that he's fathered three children is evidence of that. 

    "The disease only affects voluntary muscle," Hawking's been quoted as saying.

    He's been called an "incorrigible flirt" and a "party animal who likes to dance in his wheelchair." Having seen Hawking playfully chase his grandson around a backstage room in his wheelchair after a Seattle lecture, I can readily believe the "party animal" part. And having seen the way his expressive eyes light up a room, I know he can turn on the charm despite his disability.

    Through the years, Hawking has had a special thing for Marilyn Monroe. A picture of the enigmatic blonde hangs in his Cambridge office, and Hawking once told The Guardian that if he could travel back in time, he'd rather meet Monroe than the great physicist Isaac Newton, who "seems to have been an unpleasant character."

    Even as he approaches the age of 70, Hawking seems to have kept his playful, pleasant, mischievous character. That may help explain his latest comment about the mystique surrounding women, as well as his own mystique.

    Here's a classic example: Actress Jane Fonda was clearly won over last year when Hawking came backstage after her performance in a play about a woman musicologist in the early stages of neurodegenerative disease. "I took his hand and carefully uncurled the fingers one by one, wanting to see how they felt and looked ... soft, pale, safe," she recalled in a blog posting.

    When Fonda asked Hawking what he thought of her performance, Hawking typed out a short response: "You were my heartthrob" — which got a big laugh. Fonda came away starstruck. "This man who cannot move or speak, can, nonetheless, comprehend the incomprehensible," she wrote.

    Hmm ... Maybe women aren't such a complete mystery to Hawking after all.

    More about Stephen Hawking:

    • Hawking is turning 70, and defying disease
    • Hawking seeks a helper to make his voice heard
    • 'There is no heaven,' Stephen Hawking says
    • Hawking: Aliens may pose risks to Earth

    Where in the Cosmos?

    This year we'll be experimenting with a Cosmic Log Facebook series called "Where in the Cosmos?" WITCo will offer pictures from cosmic locales and ask you to figure out where the pictures came from. But our first WITCo picture poses a slightly different challenge: In honor of Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday, the Science Museum has commissioned a series of pictures showing the physicist in his office, surrounded by knick-knacks and pictures. One of the pictures is at the top of this item. We've posted another picture to the Cosmic Log Facebook page, but we need your help to figure out what the knick-knacks are, what the pictures on Hawking's wall show, and what the equations on his blackboard refer to. Head on over to Facebook, "like" the Cosmic Log page, and help us solve the puzzle by adding your comments.


    Hawking's birthday will be marked on Sunday at Cambridge University with a symposium on "The State of the Universe," featuring talks from 27 leading scientists, including Hawking himself. The public sessions on Sunday will be streamed live over the Internet. There's also a scientific symposium that got under way today. Those sessions, which continue on Friday and Saturday, are also being streamed.

    Hawking retired from his post as a mathematics professor at Cambridge in 2009 and is now director of research at the university's Center for Theoretical Cosmology. He also holds a distinguished research chair at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. For an in-depth look at his life, his work and his mystique, check out "Stephen Hawking: An Unfettered Mind," a new biography by Kitty Ferguson.

    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.

    341 comments

    Of course he doesn't understand women. 1. He's a science nerd. 2. Women can't be explained mathematically.

    Show more
    Explore related topics: science, featured, stephen-hawking, new-scientist, witco
  • 3
    Sep
    2010
    8:34pm, EDT

    Is the grand design within our grasp?

    Nova / PBS

    This is a two-dimensional artistic visualization of a six-dimensional Calabi-Yau shape — an intricately folded knot of space. Such visualizations play a role in conceptualizing M-theory, which physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow say is "the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find."

    More than a decade ago, British physicist Stephen Hawking said there was a 50-50 chance that a unified "theory of everything" would be discovered in 20 years' time. Now Hawking thinks the theory has been found.

    In "The Grand Design," he and co-author Leonard Mlodinow explain why a concept called M-theory offers the only path they can see to understanding the universe's grand design. Hawking got a lot of click traffic earlier this week for his observation that God wasn't needed to explain the origin of the universe. But his claim that "M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find" could be, if anything, more scientifically controversial.

    "Stephen often overstates the case, and that's fine," said Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University who's coming out with his own book about the ultimate questions of physics next year. "That's by virtue of the fact that it's hard for him to go into detail because of his medical condition. Because of that, he makes brief, blunt statements. It's almost like the Bible. Whenever he says anything, people jump on it."

    M-theory is a key jumping-off point for "The Grand Design." The string theorists who came up with the term have never agreed on exactly what the "M" stands for, although the words "membrane," "matrix," "mystery" and "magic" have all been floated as possibilities. My favorite explanation is that M-theory is the "mother of all theories."

    Pulling strings
    String theory suggests that the fundamental constituents of reality are not pointlike particles (such as the concepts we have for protons, neutrons and electrons) but are more like tiny strings vibrating at different "frequencies." Such ideas can be used to make linkages between gravity and the other fundamental forces in physics, but only if you build 10 dimensions into the picture.

    Theorists found that five different strains of string theory explained how the universe worked, from five seemingly irreconcilable perspectives. But if you added one more dimension to the picture, effectively turning the dimensional dial up to 11, everything made sense. The five perspectives could be seen merely as different ways of expressing the same super-theory. That's what's known as M-theory.

    Hawking and Mlodinow may make it sound as if M-theory has to be the theory of everything, but Krauss says it's too early to declare "M-Mission Accomplished." One big issue is that M-theory makes more than one prediction about the nature of the universe. In fact, the number of predictions it makes is somewhere around 10 to the 500th power. That's a 1 followed by 500 zeroes.

    "On the surface, that sounds like a bad thing," Krauss said. He has observed that this kind of string theory isn't so much a theory of everything as it is a theory of anything (or a theory of nothing). But most scientists have come around to the view that the multiplicity of M-theory's predictions is actually a virtue. Seen from this perspective, it may be that anything is possible when it comes to creating universes. We just happen to be in a universe where all the lottery numbers have added up to win what astrobiologist Paul Davies calls the "cosmic jackpot."

    "Interestingly enough, what people are hanging onto is the lack of ability to make predictions," Krauss said. "It turns a wart into a beauty mark."

    What Krauss finds exciting is that there could be ways to verify that something can come from nothing -- which is the point behind Hawking's claim that God isn't necessary to explain the universe's creation.

    Physicists have noted that the positive energy contained in particles and the negative energy represented by gravitational attraction appear to balance out precisely. "Empirically, we can actually have evidence that the universe came from nothing. One of the key things is that the total energy of the universe is zero, which is only possible if the universe came from nothing. It could have been otherwise. It could have been not zero," Krauss said.

    The concept of a zero-energy universe and getting something from nothing may sound crazy, but this article from Mercury magazine and this video of one of Krauss' lectures, both titled "A Universe From Nothing," show that the ideas has been percolating among scientists for years. Such ideas are central to "The Grand Design," as well as to the book that Krauss is currently in the midst of writing.

    "This is very premature, because we still don't know what M-theory is," Krauss told me. "The interesting question for me, ultimately, more than this metaphysics, is whether we'll be able to empirically answer these questions. Science has gotten to the point where there's the hope that we'll be able to turn some of this metaphysics into physics."

    Mlodinow and Hawking

    Judith Croasdell

    Physicists Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking work together in Hawking's office in Cambridge, England.

    Mlodinow agrees with Krauss that M-theory still has miles to go, but he says it may be as close as science can get to the fabled theory of everything. The Caltech physicist has collaborated with Hawking for years -- not only on "The Grand Design," but also on "A Briefer History of Time," a streamlined version of Hawking's classic work. Mlodinow has also done science writing as a solo act, as the author of "Feynman's Rainbow" and "The Drunkard's Walk."

    During a telephone interview, Mlodinow told me that "The Grand Design" was truly a joint effort, in which he and Hawking traded, debated and restated each other's prose. "Everything was pretty much passed back and forth, so actually it would be hard to identify which one of us wrote what," he said. "In fact, at times where I've tried, I've gone back to my computer to see -- and sometimes I'm wrong."

    Thus, Mlodinow is as good a source as Hawking for insights into the meaning of "The Grand Design." Here's an edited transcript of our Q&A:

    Cosmic Log: In the past, Stephen has talked about the quest for a theory of everything. The book makes it sound as if it's not so much one theory of everything, but a series of theories for different model-based views of reality. Do you get a sense that it's going to be possible to come up with one unified theory of physics?

    Leonard Mlodinow: Well, the book is about why the laws of nature are what they are, and where the universe came from. We do say in the book that we believe the unified theory is M-theory. So we not only believe that it's possible, but we believe that it's here.

    Q: But M-theory is an array of different perspectives on reality, and one of the things about that approach is that one model works for one scale, or one sphere of physics, and perhaps another theory -- I don't know whether you'd call it a subtheory, or another perspective -- works for a different one.

    A: M-theory is the most general quantum theory that would include gravity, using the constraints that we feel need to be employed -- for example, that it's finite and would make reasonable predictions. Whether it's a single theory or a network of theories is not yet known. I think Stephen feels that there's a good chance it's a network of theories, which is what we see today. Where they overlap, they agree. In other areas where they don't overlap, they make their own predictions. Stephen believes that's OK, and we shouldn't be disappointed if the final theory is a network of theories. According to model-dependent realism, all that is OK. It's just the way reality is. You can't ask which of the theories in that network is more "real."

    Q: Do you have a slightly different point of view? Because it sounds as if you're presenting Stephen's view as distinct from your own.

    A: No, I agree with Stephen. We debated this idea of model-dependent realism over quite a period of time. I'm saying that just because I'm assuming you were interested in Stephen's opinion more than mine. But I'm happy to jump in as well.

    Q: In the latter part of the book, there's some discussion about how God does or does not play a role in the big questions about the universe....

    A: Well, people have always wondered about the big questions: Where did the universe come from? Why is nature the way it is? At first we had mythology to answer that question. I suppose people just made up stories, and they became the myths. Or they evolved. Later we had the religions that we have today, and philosophy grew up. People used applied reason, intuition and some small amount of observation as well -- and came up with their own concepts on the answers to these questions.

    The Grand Design

    Bantam Books

    "The Grand Design" delves into subjects ranging from M-theory to God's role.

    A few hundred years ago we developed this thing called the scientific method, where we come up with theories phrased in mathematics, and we require that they not only describe what we're looking to describe but also make further predictions that can be tested. Then we do experiments, and if we find that the predictions are not right, if they're not verified, then we alter or discard the theory.

    In the book, we argue that this is a better method. It's led to the modern society that we have today -- to vaccinations, computers, electricity, television, telephones, everything else. When you understand nature to that extent, you can apply it. Since you really understand what's going on, you can create all this technology, which you don't create based on mythology, philosophy and religious explanations.

    As far as God goes, we describe our theory of where the universe came from, and why the laws of nature are as they are. And we show that with this theory, there's no need for a God to create the universe or to create the laws of physics as they are. All of this can come purely from physics, from science, from nature.

    Q: There's always a question about "what happened before the big bang," or about the nature of time. Stephen dealt with that in "A Brief History of Time," and you helped with that vision through your work on "A Briefer History of Time." How does this book advance the ball?

    A: One of Stephen's big ideas in this book is called "top-down cosmology." It's the idea that we should trace the history of the universe from the present time backwards -- and that the universe has many histories because it's a quantum system. In "normal" physics, we work in a laboratory and we do experiments. We set up the experiment in an initial state, then we let it go for a while, then we do measurements on its final state -- and we check predictions. The theory tells us how the initial state should develop, and then we make predictions about the final state.

    We can't do that with the universe as a whole. We don't set up the initial state. We don't have a laboratory where we can control what's going on. We can't repeat the experiment and take the data. Also, the universe -- since we believe in quantum theory now -- is a quantum system.

    In normal cosmology, people start with the initial state as if it were a laboratory -- which it's not -- and they use classical ideas, meaning that there's one history of the universe which they trace forward. Stephen believes that we should start from our observations now, because that's all we can do, and trace it backwards, taking into account the fact that the universe has many histories and not just one.

    Q: Right, there's a discussion in the book about how the past is as much affected by quantum mechanics as the future is. So there's uncertainty about the past -- which is counterintuitive. That must be a hard sell with normal people who say, well, I remember specifically what I had for dinner yesterday. We know for sure what happened in the past because of things ranging from human memory to the fossil record to the process of baryogenesis at the beginnings of the universe. So how can you say that there's a factor of uncertainty about past events?

    A: Well, if you happened to have experienced all possible aspects of the universe for all of time, there would not be uncertainty. Quantum theory doesn't say that if you ate an egg, you might not have eaten the egg. Let's get that straight. What quantum theory says is that in between the times when we observe and measure, and interact in that way, these properties that we talk about have no meaning.

    For instance, in classical theory, if you push a billiard ball down the table, and if no one is interacting with it or measuring it, it still has one path with a well-defined position at every time. Those properties exist. In quantum theory, if you push it and then no one interacts with it, you cannot in general say that it has a particular position and velocity at any time. In classical theory, we say that it has those properties, and when we measure it, we're just reading off those properties. In quantum theory, it's not correct to say that a measurement is merely reading off those properties. Rather, it doesn't have those properties when we don't measure it.

    Now, if you had an egg yesterday, you interacted with the egg, and there's an egg there. When we look at the universe today, with top-down cosmology, we don't allow for the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese -- because we already know that the moon isn't made of green cheese. We put in all the data of all our observations, and that prunes down the number of different histories that have to be taken into account. But where observations haven't been made, we don't.

    So the vagueness of the past is the vagueness of things unmeasured in the past.

    Q: Does that imply then that there will be no way to answer that classic question, "What happened before the big bang"? Because the uncertainty goes to an indeterminately high level?

    A: No, it's not that. As you go backward in time, quantum theory, combined with general relativity, tells you that if you go back early enough in the universe, time ceases to have the meaning that we assign to it today. It ceases to act as we know it. So it's not a well-posed question to say, "What happened at the beginning of time?" -- because time doesn't go back to the beginning.

    According to general relativity, time and space exist under certain conditions. Quantum theory tells you that there are always fluctuations in empty space, and if you make the universe small enough, the fluctuations are great enough that the matter is squashed down enough that this affects the character of space and time itself. Time doesn't exist at that point. So the question doesn't make any sense.

    Q: I know we're coming to end of our time -- speaking of that -- but do you hold out hope that humans will at some point understand the totality of the grand design? Or is the grand design something that our brains aren't just big enough to hold? Or is it something that is unknowable, because that's just the nature of the universe?

    A: No, we believe that humans can understand it. That's the great triumph and the great miracle of the universe.

    More about Stephen Hawking and the cosmos:

    • Hawking says God's not needed. So?
    • Video: NBC News' Brian Williams on "The Grand Design"
    • Do we need to get off Earth by 2110?
    • Hawking goes zero-G: 'Space, here I come'
    • Aliens may pose risk to Earth, Hawking says
    • Up close with Dr. Hawking
    • Interactive: Beyond the Big Bang
    • Interactive: The Symphony of Everything

    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

    293 comments

    Really??  Science can't seem to find a way to believe in God, but a 6 dimensional space knot is totally acceptable. I think I'll defer to my Scientific 'Theory' of God..

    Show more
    Explore related topics: science, books, religion, cosmology, stephen-hawking, grand-design
  • 1
    Sep
    2010
    11:19pm, EDT

    Hawking says God's not needed. So?

    Rodger Bosch / AFP - Getty Images file

    Physicist Stephen Hawking delivers a lecture in South Africa in 2008. In a new book, he says science doesn't need God to explain the origin of the universe.

    British physicist Stephen Hawking's latest book is already making waves with his observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.

    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

    That's the quote that lit the fuse in The Guardian as well in The Times of London, which published an excerpt from the book in its Thursday editions. But by itself, the quote doesn't have much "there" there. If Hawking is saying merely that something can arise from nothing willy-nilly, that's not much of an explanation for the origin of the universe.

    What he's actually saying in the book is that when we study the universe's origins, we have to work our way back from the present, rather than assuming there's an arbitrary point 13.7 billion years ago when Someone pressed the button on a cosmic stopwatch. And when you look at it that way, the universe looks more and more like a quantum phenomenon, in which a multitude of histories diverge. This is what Hawking calls top-down cosmology.

    Space and time fizzle out, so it can't be said that there is a time before the big bang — just as you can't say that there is something north of the North Pole. (I'm talking "north," not "up.")

    Gravity is part of the picture because it helps keep the cosmic balance sheet in line. Here's the part of the paragraph just before the quote cited above: "Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes."

    "The Grand Design" puts together ideas that Hawking has been trying out for a long time. Five years ago, for example, he noted that eliminating the question of what happened before the big bang meant "the beginning of the universe would be covered by science." And four years ago, he joked that he had presented a paper suggesting how the universe began during the same conference at which Pope John Paul II asked scientists to set the question aside.

    Does Hawking's view mean that modern physics "leaves no place for God in the creation of the universe," as the Times suggests, or that "God did not create the universe," as The Guardian claims? Not unless you need a "God of the Gaps" to step into science's place. A more sophisticated view would hold that physics (and evolutionary biology, to cite another example) are the not-always-mysterious ways in which God routinely works. In fact, Soren Kierkegaard would say that God's workings have to be transparent — and I tend to side with Soren.

    Some will argue that such a concept of divinity is so weak it should be sliced away with Occam's Razor. Others will quote chapter and verse to support their claim that religion trumps science. And still others will argue that science and religion should be non-overlapping magisteria. But hey, that's what the comment box below is for. Feel free to weigh in with your comments, and stay tuned for my Q&A with Leonard Mlodinow later in the week.

    Update for 1:50 p.m. ET Sept. 2: The waves continue to roll across the Internet. Here's a transcript of a Times of London chat about Hawking's comments, featuring evolutionary biologist (and atheist) Richard Dawkins talking about God. "Darwin kicked him out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain," Dawkins says. "Hawking is now administering the coup de grace."

    Reaction is also coming in from godly types such as Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, Britain's top Jewish leader, as well as the Rev. Dr. David Wilkinson, an astrophysicist who is principal of St. John's College, Durham. "There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live," Sacks is quoted as saying. Wilkinson, meanwhile, says that Hawking "raises a number of questions which for many opens the door to the possibility of an existence of a creator," such as cosmic purpose, the source of the laws of physics and the intelligibility of the universe.

    Dawkins says those questions either don't matter to him or are unanswerable.

    The parodies are starting to roll in as well, by the way. Here's a bit of "disinformation" from Colombia Reports that puts devil horns on Hawking.

    More about Stephen Hawking:

    • Do we need to get off Earth by 2110?
    • Hawking goes zero-G: 'Space, here I come'
    • Aliens may pose risk to Earth, Hawking says
    • Up close with Dr. Hawking

    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

    1720 comments

    Well Stephen, You're very bright; so, first find nothing and then create something from it. I'll even accept creating something from a total vacuum; which is still something. Until then, my question remains "what exploded if nothing existed before the big bang"?

    Show more
    Explore related topics: science, books, religion, space, featured, cosmology, stephen-hawking
  • 9
    Aug
    2010
    8:43pm, EDT

    Stephen Hawking: Off Earth by 2110?

    Rodger Bosch / AFP - Getty Images file

    Physicist Stephen Hawking delivers a lecture in South Africa in 2008. For years, Hawking has been urging continued progress in human spaceflight as a long-term survival measure.

    We may have just 100 to 200 years to figure out how to get off this rock and give our species a cosmic insurance policy, physicist Stephen Hawking says in a fresh interview with BigThink. Hawking has said this sort of thing several times before - but every time he mentions the time frame, it adds an extra bit of urgency to the warning.

    This time, Hawking's views are given a stark spin: "Abandon Earth - or Face Extinction." But Hawking isn't really suggesting we should just give up on our planet. It's just that right now we have all our eggs in one planetary basket. Here's the key passage:

    "If we are the only intelligent beings in the galaxy, we should make sure we survive and continue. But we are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward-looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years, but if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space. That is why I'm in favor of manned, or should I say, 'personed' spaceflight."

    Hawking said that "if we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe as we spread into space."

    The threats that Hawking is worried about break down into two categories: First, there are the doomsdays we could bring down upon ourselves - such as biological or nuclear attacks, or human-caused climate change that has such sudden effects that we can't adjust. The other category would be catastrophes that we don't cause: for example, a direct hit by a huge space rock or a supernova blast; or a bizarre, world-changing eruption of super-volcanoes; or the emergence of a novel pathogen that our species can't fight.

    The first category encompasses issues that we can do something about, and Hawking of course favors taking whatever action is necessary to save the environment and human society. The second category, however, takes in plausible extinction scenarios that humans couldn't do much about. Either category of catastrophe would require the human species to have an off-planet Plan B.

    I've said for years that extinction avoidance is one of the five E's that explain why we have to spend our time and effort on space science and exploration. And I'm not by any means the first person to figure that out:

    "The earth is the cradle of humankind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever" - Russian rocket pioneer Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, 1895

    "Earth is too small a basket for mankind to keep all its eggs in." - science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein

    "Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring - not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive." - astronomer-author Carl Sagan, 1994

    "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" - science-fiction writer Larry Niven, as quoted by Arthur C. Clarke in 2001

    Mars would offer the best nearby second home for humanity and our allied species - and on that score, Hawking's view has been echoed by SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who says his ultimate aim is to make Homo sapiens a multiplanet species. In the longer term, our distant descendants will have to leave Earth entirely before the sun goes all red-giant on us. Humans would have to move outward to the solar system's rim - or perhaps eventually to other star systems, on a voyage that would most likely take many generations.

    How can humans do that? Hawking doesn't put forward any detailed answers, but in recent months he has outlined three way-out ideas for time travel, including wormholes, black-hole encounters and super-fast acceleration. In the "Star Trek: First Contact" time line, humans came up with warp drive - and were visited by friendly Vulcans - in the year 2063. Will humans get that lucky in real life? Maybe there's an astronomically remote chance. But Hawking has another warning about that: We'd better be careful about the aliens we come across.

    So what do you think? Considering all the trouble that NASA has been having with human spaceflight lately, how much do you think we can get done by 2110? Will it make a difference for our species' survival? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comment space below.


    Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And if you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."

    378 comments

    This is far beyond the imagination realm of most our world "leaders," but is absolutely right on the mark. It should be a fundamental reason for NASA's existence, engraved on a bronze plate at their headquarters: "Space exploration- for the survival and betterment of the human species." Thank you Dr …

    Show more
    Explore related topics: science, space, featured, stephen-hawking, get-off-this-rock

Browse

  • featured,
  • science,
  • space,
  • images,
  • nasa,
  • innovation,
  • cosmic-log,
  • video,
  • john-roach,
  • tech-science,
  • mars,
  • new-space,
  • daily-dose,
  • technology,
  • energy,
  • participation,
  • environment,
  • whimsy,
  • holiday-calendar,
  • planets,
  • archaeology,
  • physics,
  • on-the-fringe,
  • curiosity,
  • spacex,
  • moon,
  • books,
  • msl,
  • politics,
  • aurora,
  • hubble,
  • sun,
  • robot,
  • religion,
  • japan,
  • 3-d,
  • asteroids,
  • iss,
  • updated,
  • movies,
  • genetics,
  • astrobiology,
  • evolution,
  • saturn,
  • automotive
Also
Advertise | AdChoices

Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News

Science editor at msnbc.com, author of "The Case for Pluto," winner of the National Academies Communication Award for Cosmic Log in 2008. Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for msnbc.com. Check out Cosmic Log's archives by following the links below, and see Boyle's full biography at http://bit.ly/boyle-bio

Alan Boyle, Science Editor, NBC News Blogroll

  • Bad Astronomy
  • CollectSpace
  • Cosmic Variance
  • Curmudgeons Corner
  • Discovery News
  • The Daily Grail
  • EarthSky
  • GeekPress
  • Habitable Zone
  • HobbySpace Log
  • LiveScience
  • The Loom
  • NASA Watch
  • NASA Spaceflight
  • Out of the Cradle
  • SciDev.net
  • Science Blog
  • ScienceBlogs
  • Science Quest
  • SciAm Observations
  • Seed Magazine
  • Slashdot Science
  • Space.com
  • Spaceflight Now
  • Space Fellowship
  • The Space Review
  • Transterrestrial Musings
  • Universe Today
  • Unmanned Spaceflight
  • Phenomena
  • Planetary Society Blog
  • Science News
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Popular Science
  • Science Insider
  • NASAEngineer.com
  • EurekAlert
  • Nature: The Great Beyond
  • Space Daily
  • Space Politics
The Case for Pluto
Alan Boyle's first book tells the story of Pluto's ups and downs as well as the discoveries of other dwarf planets in our own solar system and even more alien worlds beyond. Buy "The Case for Pluto" ...

Archives

  • 2013
    • June (30)
    • May (48)
    • April (55)
    • March (53)
    • February (44)
    • January (45)
  • 2012
    • December (65)
    • November (12)
    • October (39)
    • September (43)
    • August (62)
    • July (45)
    • June (51)
    • May (46)
    • April (40)
    • March (56)
    • February (63)
    • January (66)
  • 2011
    • December (89)
    • November (73)
    • October (62)
    • September (67)
    • August (61)
    • July (70)
    • June (82)
    • May (86)
    • April (69)
    • March (94)
    • February (67)
    • January (82)
  • 2010
    • December (118)
    • November (62)
    • October (82)
    • September (63)
    • August (62)
    • July (54)
    • June (83)
    • May (51)
    • April (31)
    • March (35)
    • February (36)
    • January (35)
  • 2009
    • December (42)
    • November (34)
    • October (35)
    • September (40)
    • August (32)
    • July (38)
    • June (45)
    • May (37)
    • April (42)
    • March (38)
    • February (37)
    • January (35)
  • 2008
    • December (33)
    • November (31)
    • October (42)
    • September (48)
    • August (35)
    • July (37)
    • June (42)
    • May (43)
    • April (40)
    • March (39)
    • February (42)
    • January (42)
  • 2007
    • December (29)
    • November (40)
    • October (57)
    • September (35)
    • August (47)
    • July (38)
    • June (44)
    • May (44)
    • April (43)
    • March (40)
    • February (41)
    • January (47)
  • 2006
    • December (45)
    • November (49)
    • October (39)
    • September (50)
    • August (58)
    • July (45)
    • June (56)
    • May (8)

Most Commented

  • This is your brain on fatherhood: Dads experience hormonal changes too, research shows (73)
  • House GOP: Don't grab an asteroid — let's put bases on moon and Mars (66)
  • How duct tape patched up the world – and why we're still sticking with it (39)
  • Laser scans flesh out the saga of Cambodia's 1,200-year-old lost city (47)
  • Duhhh-WHAT-cho? Find out how a derecho packs its windy punch (16)
  • China's Shenzhou 10 spaceship brings crew to orbital lab for practice (21)
  • From Superman saga to real-life science: It's not an impossible leap (17)

Other blogs

  • Red Tape Chronicles
  • PhotoBlog
  • US News
  • Open Channel

NBCNews.com top stories

3147,10
© 2013 NBCNews.com
  • Science on NBCNews.com
  • About us
  • Contact
  • Help
  • Site map
  • Careers
  • Closed captioning
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy policy
  • Advertise