Hawking says humans close to finding answers to origin of universe

[DeclinetoState]

Acclaimed British physicist Stephen Hawking has said that humanity is finally getting close to understanding the origin of the universe.

Speaking at a lecture in Hong Kong (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=%22Hong+Kong%22&sid=breitbart.com), Hawking said that despite some theoretical advances in the past years, there are still mysteries as to how the universe began.

...


The 64-year-old also said his unfulfilled ambitions, among many, were to find out what happens inside black holes, how the universe began and how the human race can survive in the next 100 years.

Above all, he joked, he wants to understand women.


Breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/060615121526.oz37mqn8.html)

[DesertFox]

We're only a few hundred years away from knowing all about it.

[Popperite]

We're only a few hundred years away from knowing all about it.

He was rather optimistic about that in the last paragraphs of 'A brief history of time'. That's been a while though. We'll learn more no doubt, but will we also understand?

[Wolfcounsel]

"We're only a few hundred years away from knowing all about it." --DesertFox

Dream on!



Oh, you're talking about the universe.:evilgrin: <!-- / message -->

[dajoga]

Acclaimed British physicist Stephen Hawking has said that humanity is finally getting close to understanding the origin of the universe.

Wha'zzamatter, Stevie, boy? Can't you read? The answer's been around for about 3500 years--Gen 1:1

[Timberwolf]

My thoughts exactly, dj...only I thought it had been closer to 5 or 6 thousand....my timing could be off, though...lol

[DesertFox]

We're going to find that the "missing matter" that comprises 90% of the universe (and our own galaxy) has exotic properties that will enable us to travel the Milky Way and perhaps the universe in finite time. We'll be able to go back and forth in time because of it.

But that will happen after, not before, Jesus' return.

[Book]

He was rather optimistic about that in the last paragraphs of 'A brief history of time'. That's been a while though. We'll learn more no doubt, but will we also understand?

If it's any more complicated than 'A brief history of time' then I may give up and become a creationist :evilgrin:

I've read it twice and I'm still baffled by some of the stuff he talks about. I suppose it's moot since the publishing of 'A briefer history of time'.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Hawking says humans close to finding answers to origin of universe

I already figgered this universe thing out by third grade. Missus Brazel, my teacher, used to lean over me to check my work. I found that I could peer right into her blouse as one of her buttons strained to contain her massive mud-clackers. It was heavenly in there. I would get giddy with excitement.

So, regarding this Trekkie wannabe... its called a vagina, nerd boy. Been around for ages.

Its the cause of all wars and the remedy as well.

Look into it.

Or better yet, just get 4 eyes a subscription to Jugs.

[DesertFox]

But Hawking can't lean forward to peer down a blouse, and his lower equipment don't work because he's all atrophied. Poor blighter.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Just put him in the drop zone.

http://www.coates.com.au/equipment/pics/Safety%20Harness.jpg

[sunsettommy]

LOL,

Hawking and others arrogantly said back in the early 90's that we will soon know everything in 10 years.A set of equations that descibe the universe or something like that.

That was about 16 years ago.

To me so much of his book was speculation,speculation and more speculation.

What ever happened to the idea of empirical evidence?

Hawking is an overrated scientists.

[Popperite]

If it's any more complicated than 'A brief history of time' then I may give up and become a creationist :evilgrin:

I've read it twice and I'm still baffled by some of the stuff he talks about. I suppose it's moot since the publishing of 'A briefer history of time'.

I read it once. But more than once I had to turn back entire chapters and start afresh. Took me about six months to finish it, but turning the pages back at a point where your totally lost and rereading parts of it was a good method for me.

[Popperite]

LOL,

Hawking and others arrogantly said back in the early 90's that we will soon know everything in 10 years.A set of equations that descibe the universe or something like that.

That was about 16 years ago.

To me so much of his book was speculation,speculation and more speculation.

What ever happened to the idea of empirical evidence?

Hawking is an overrated scientists.

Well this business is for a big part about calculating and hypothesising and testing afterwards. Long afterwards. Empirical evidence only comes when you know what to look for. And then (in most cases not) finding it.

[DesertFox]

I don't like Hawking at all, but there's nothing wrong with his science. Physics at the cutting edge today, where he works, is largely about math so complex that not many even wanna give it a go. But among those who do, what makes it all come together is when a hypothesis -- expressed mathematically -- comes out consistent with itself and with fundamental principles. Hawking's work does that.

[DeclinetoState]

I read it once. But more than once I had to turn back entire chapters and start afresh. Took me about six months to finish it, but turning the pages back at a point where your totally lost and rereading parts of it was a good method for me.Are you sure you didn't just go into a time warp somewhere along the way?

[Book]

To me so much of his book was speculation,speculation and more speculation.
What ever happened to the idea of empirical evidence? Not really. He made a choice not to include any equations or mathematical proofs except E=MC2. He reasoned that for every equation in the book it would half the readership.
The evidence and proof you want is out there, he just chose to express it in laymans terms. Much more profitable that way.

[Popperite]

Are you sure you didn't just go into a time warp somewhere along the way?

You know, that could very well be the case. I remember reading the part about worm holes and being totally lost at that point and later reading the same part again and still being equally dumbfounded. It must have been a loop in time and space now I come to think of it......

[True Grace]

You know, that could very well be the case. I remember reading the part about worm holes and being totally lost at that point and later reading the same part again and still being equally dumbfounded. It must have been a loop in time and space now I come to think of it......

So you don't understand half of what he writes, but you just take him on his word that he knows what he is talking about?

[Popperite]

So you don't understand half of what he writes, but you just take him on his word that he knows what he is talking about?

Oh dear, forgot those ... tags again.

[True Grace]

Oh dear, forgot those ... tags again.

So you DO understand it all?

[Popperite]

So you DO understand it all?

I've been able to follow what he was on about in that book at the time, yes. If there's a small quiz next week however I'll have some serious re-reading to do. It's been some years.

[Rhino]

Above all, he joked, he wants to understand women.I think that question is unsolvable.

[Book]

So you don't understand half of what he writes, but you just take him on his word that he knows what he is talking about? In a way yes. However I don't have faith in what he says. I understand that everything he says could prove to be completely inaccurate. He would be the first to acknowledge this.

What you say there is pretty close to how a lot of people feel about religious preachers.

[Popperite]

In a way yes. However I don't have faith in what he says. I understand that everything he says could prove to be completely inaccurate. He would be the first to acknowledge this.

What you say there is pretty close to how a lot of people feel about religious preachers.

The propositions made in the most forward part of that field are based on mathematical models for a great part. Actually finding out if the predictions made are indeed out there is not always easy or straightforward. I don't think Hawking radiation has ever been verified for instance. Wormholes neither. On some issues his predictions have failed thusfar, giving room to other propositions. This is a field with many uncertainties still on the outer edges, but there are also many things in this field that have been verifies and withstood the tests.

[DesertFox]

It's pretty near certain that if something exists mathematically it exists in reality, and Hawking radiation exists in mathematics. Wormholes haven't been shown to exist (mathematically) long enough to serve any useful purpose -- to date. Best reading on this that I've seen is Cal Tech's Kip Thorne.

[Popperite]

It's pretty near certain that if something exists mathematically it exists in reality, and Hawking radiation exists in mathematics. Wormholes haven't been shown to exist (mathematically) long enough to serve any useful purpose -- to date. Best reading on this that I've seen is Cal Tech's Kip Thorne.

That's true. But math isn't the only factor in some of these things (although a very big one). The model has to be right as well.

[DesertFox]

My comment on math related directly and solely to your comment about Hawking radiation not having been proven. It has been -- mathematically.

[Suzie]

I have a book I can let him read.

[Popperite]

I know, but it would be neat if they actually observed it, just to bring the point home. Theoretically there can always be an unexpected factor in nature itself that has been left out of the equation because we simply don't know about it. To name a very crude one, in order for the model to work, black holes will have to exist in the first place, and there was a time in all this when that wasn't a 100% established. Remember the famous bet between Hawkings and Kip Thorne?

One other bet — about the existence of black holes — was described by Hawking as an "insurance policy" of sorts. To quote from his book, A Brief History of Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time), "This was a form of insurance policy for me. 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, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye). If black holes do exist, Kip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne) will get one year of Penthouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penthouse_%28magazine%29). When we made the bet in 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975), we were 80% certain that Cygnus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1) was a black hole. By now, I would say that we are about 95% certain, but the bet has yet to be settled." (1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988)) According to the updated 10th anniversary edition of A Brief History of Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time), Hawking has conceded the bet "to the outrage of Kip's liberated wife" due to subsequent observational data in favor of black holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawkings

When Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that starlight would be bent when passing close to the sun he had to wait another four or five years before this was actually seen during a solar eclipse in West-Africa and his theory had withstood a test.

[Charity]

http://www.imagepharm.com/sb.php?s=180
LOL

[sunsettommy]

Well this business is for a big part about calculating and hypothesising and testing afterwards. Long afterwards. Empirical evidence only comes when you know what to look for. And then (in most cases not) finding it.

The trouble is popper that he does not even show interest in empirical data in his speculative book.

Remember his multiple universes he talks about in the book?

It was all speculative with not a shred of evidence provided of its existence.

A sad book since so much of it was speculative.

I am always amazed that it was taken seriously when it is really a work of poor fiction.

[sunsettommy]

I know, but it would be neat if they actually observed it, just to bring the point home. Theoretically there can always be an unexpected factor in nature itself that has been left out of the equation because we simply don't know about it. To name a very crude one, in order for the model to work, black holes will have to exist in the first place, and there was a time in all this when that wasn't a 100% established. Remember the famous bet between Hawkings and Kip Thorne?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawkings

When Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted that starlight would be bent when passing close to the sun he had to wait another four or five years before this was actually seen during a solar eclipse in West-Africa and his theory had withstood a test.

But at least Einstein made a coherent paper with predictions that scientists can test.

How can you prove the existence of multiple universes?

[Charity]

http://www.astrosurf.org/lombry/Physique/hawking-startrek-tng.jpg

[Charity]

What about the big bang?
Even the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.

by Werner Gitt (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/w_gitt.asp)
In his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate question behind everything. ‘Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.’<SUP>1</SUP> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp#r1)
In the last chapter of his book he says:
‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’<SUP>2</SUP> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp#r2)
Hawking concedes that the important question of why the universe exists cannot be answered by means of equations and theories.
‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?’<SUP>3</SUP> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp#r3)
Nevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the equations, instead of looking for their Author.
‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.’<SUP>4</SUP> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp#r4)
Like so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.
The idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.
According to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.
This inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded.
Space does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.<SUP>5</SUP> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp#r5) Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.
If the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).

read more
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/big_bang.asp

[DesertFox]

Let's not turn this into a God or no God argument. Hawking's book was about modern cosmology, which is the science of the universe. Science is atheistic by nature, seeking to know the how rather than the Who of things.

It's like a kid taking something apart to see how it works. He doesn't doubt for a minute that it does work because he's seen it work. But he doesn't just shrug and say, "God makes it work." He takes it apart to see why it works.

That's what scientists are doing with the universe. It's inappropriate to expect them to factor God into their work.

That does NOT mean they should be using their work in any way to denigrate God, the idea of God, the myth of God, the fantasy of God, or anything else related to God. God should not be in their work or words of their work. They need to shut up about God altogether.

[Popperite]

The trouble is popper that he does not even show interest in empirical data in his speculative book.

Remember his multiple universes he talks about in the book?

It was all speculative with not a shred of evidence provided of its existence.

A sad book since so much of it was speculative.

I am always amazed that it was taken seriously when it is really a work of poor fiction.

I remember him mentioning the multiverse among other cosmological models, but that wasn't brought up as something he professed to be known or proven or even a central theme of the book as far as I remember. The book was about the history of the cosmos as seen in the light of cosmology. This is a discipline in which concrete aspects can be seen in the light of different (speculative) models. Although I don't remember him bringing the multiverse up as one that could give us any clues, comparing the outcome of these different possibilities is not by definition a useless exercize. They can be used as a point of reference for other and perhaps for future observations that may be better understood in the light of them.
Hypothesizing is a part of the scientific process, especially in a field like this one. It doesn't prove anything in itself yet, but it is one of the tools or steps that can be used to work towards proof for, or understanding of, certain phenomena. We don't get the evidence for them handed to us on a silver platter. I think you're judging this book too harshly by phocusing on that aspect. One of the themes of the book was pointing to the direction further investigations might take us. That involves speculation but is also a legitimate subject to be covered by a book like that since scientists had developed ideas about where to look next at that time (GUT or Grand Unified Theory was the thing he mentioned about that in his book). That is still unfinished business.

[DesertFox]

It's been a lotta years since I read Hawking's first book, which wasn't IMO very well done; but the multiverse was clearly presented as speculation, as were baby universes.

[gnome]

He has a newer book, "The Universe in a Nutshell"... in the introduction he even acknowledges a flaw in "A Brief History of Time" in that much of the later chapters depend too much on earlier chapters, so that if one gets lost midway, the rest of the book isn't much use.

He tried to design his new book, he said, more like the trunk of a tree--establishing some fundamentals and having chapters that branch out from it... if one chapter loses the reader, others may still be meaningful to them.

[Popperite]

He has a newer book, "The Universe in a Nutshell"... in the introduction he even acknowledges a flaw in "A Brief History of Time" in that much of the later chapters depend too much on earlier chapters, so that if one gets lost midway, the rest of the book isn't much use.

Funny he should say that! Its true and it made the book somewhat difficult to plow through as I mentioned earlier. I'll be looking out for that new book!

[Book]

Let's not turn this into a God or no God argument. Hawking's book was about modern cosmology, which is the science of the universe. Science is atheistic by nature, seeking to know the how rather than the Who of things.

It's like a kid taking something apart to see how it works. He doesn't doubt for a minute that it does work because he's seen it work. But he doesn't just shrug and say, "God makes it work." He takes it apart to see why it works.

That's what scientists are doing with the universe. It's inappropriate to expect them to factor God into their work.

That does NOT mean they should be using their work in any way to denigrate God, the idea of God, the myth of God, the fantasy of God, or anything else related to God. God should not be in their work or words of their work. They need to shut up about God altogether. Hear hear! :claps:

[kkkron]

We're going to find that the "missing matter" that comprises 90% of the universe (and our own galaxy) has exotic properties that will enable us to travel the Milky Way and perhaps the universe in finite time. We'll be able to go back and forth in time because of it.

But that will happen after, not before, Jesus' return.

I'll hold you to that if it happens before he comes. And I did find that I got lost a lot in his book, as you need to understand a certain chapter in order to understand a different one, but it all makes sense. Of course lots of what is in there is just hypothetical, we can only observe a very small portion of the universe, and have to make do with that. He never claims that what he says is right, and readily admits that he has been proven wrong before, as have many scientists.