BREAKING: Physicist Stephen Hawking dies at the age of 76 – family

Back on track:

The "Mount Rushmore of Physics"

• Isaac Newton
  
• Albert Einstein
  
• Richard Feynman
  
• Stephen Hawking
  

Discuss.

a reply to: sapien82

If you accept evolution surely you must reject the god hypothesis

By accepting evolution you are rejecting genesis, the more you reject the less reason there is to keep believing

a reply to: GafferUK1981

god as in the dude in the chair on high with the beard looking down and judging his children ! yes I reject that

but god the infinite potential within us and the universe and the pattern that flows through everything in fractal infinite possibilities no!

See I do assign to evolution , but looking deeper there is a connection in all living and non living matter
we all vibrate , DNA , even rocks we all vibrate with energy it is all the DAO

I have spent a while taking psychedelics and it really does make you think outside the box we are in !
and I do truly believe there is something more to it all
even DNA appears to be constructed in a way , natural selction and genes themselves appear conscious as if they are able to preserve themselves
Id have to say I am agnostic , because of the things ive experienced which cant be explained by science in any way and sadly we cant discuss here !

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Brilliant, yes, but 'most brilliant of all time'? I would respectfully and heartily disagree.

The world is full of geniuses these days, mostly because there are so many more people who know how to read and write and post stuff on the Internet. Back in the long time gone, humanity only had a few pop up every once in a while. Just enough to keep us moving forward a little.

I suspect that the most brilliant human of all time is unknown, and died or was killed when they were young. Transcendental brilliance and humanity don't mix well.

Probably aborted 1000 times a year.

Ya think? or only stupid people get ripped apart before they are born?

a reply to: rnaa

As I have noted a couple times here, Hawking was clearly a great physicist. However, he was far from being the greatest physicist to ever live...and I would argue he couldn't carry water for Einstein. This is especially true when one considers their respective starting points and what Einstein knew when he started out vs. what Hawking knew...and then what they each derived from this starting point. Relativity would be a prime example. Hawking had the benefit of knowing Relativity (because Einstein developed it), Einstein did not. This is a huge difference.

You can put Hawking in there with Feynman as they were both cut from the same Quantum Mechanics cloth in a manner of speaking. But Newton? C'mon! No way!

Again, you have to consider their starting points and then what they did from there.

All due respect to Dr. Stephen Hawking, and may he rest in peace, but let's not get too carried away here.

And a word about Hawking and his alleged belief in God or lack thereof...

What Hawking's spiritual beliefs were matters little in judging his accomplishments as a theoretical physicist. In fact, I would argue that a strong religious belief would bias objective judgement in the field of Theoretical Physics, quite heavily actually...even to the point of loss of credibility. One only needs to look at the great Astronomers in history to bear out this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. Copernicus was really the first astronomer to have the courage to present a heliocentric model of the solar system, which greatly angered the 'Church' virtually to the point of branding Copernicus a heretic. Prior to Copernicus astronomers went to extraordinary lengths to maintain the geocentric model of the solar system...almost laughable lengths, if they weren't so impressive in their own right. Even though many before Copernicus knew something was wrong they were blinded (either by fear or by faith) from seeing and presenting the truth.

Additionally, there is a huge difference between believing in God and believing in a 'church' or organized religion. Hawking was never really clear on what it was he didn't believe in this regard. In fact, I would argue Hawking was attempting to be politically correct with his pronouncements about faith so as not to single out a certain religion or 'church', so he just lumped them all together and said he didn't believe. I would posit he meant more that he didn't believe in organized religion vs. the notion he didn't believe in a supreme being / intelligence at all.

Devine intervention would be an 'easy-out' and a distraction in the physics of the Universe. It would be akin to what I call an "FM circuit" in much of the physics we do at work (for example). (it's a running joke). "The goes-inta connects to the goes-outta by means of a black box, and in between is where the 'FM' circuit happens!" (Note - "FM" stands for 'F'n Magic', in case you didn't already figure that out).

Quite candidly, I would have been disappointed if Hawking had ever made some type of a strong statement about belief in religion.

Something to consider.

DP

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
And a word about Hawking and his alleged belief in God or lack thereof...

What Hawking's spiritual beliefs were matters little in judging his accomplishments as a theoretical physicist. In fact, I would argue that a strong religious belief would bias objective judgement in the field of Theoretical Physics, quite heavily actually...even to the point of loss of credibility. One only needs to look at the great Astronomers in history to bear out this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. Copernicus was really the first astronomer to have the courage to present a heliocentric model of the solar system, which greatly angered the 'Church' virtually to the point of branding Copernicus a heretic. Prior to Copernicus astronomers went to extraordinary lengths to maintain the geocentric model of the solar system...almost laughable lengths, if they weren't so impressive in their own right. Even though many before Copernicus knew something was wrong they were blinded (either by fear or by faith) from seeing and presenting the truth.

Additionally, there is a huge difference between believing in God and believing in a 'church' or organized religion. Hawking was never really clear on what it was he didn't believe in this regard. In fact, I would argue Hawking was attempting to be politically correct with his pronouncements about faith so as not to single out a certain religion or 'church', so he just lumped them all together and said he didn't believe. I would posit he meant more that he didn't believe in organized religion vs. the notion he didn't believe in a supreme being / intelligence at all.

Devine intervention would be an 'easy-out' and a distraction in the physics of the Universe. It would be akin to what I call an "FM circuit" in much of the physics we do at work (for example). (it's a running joke). "The goes-inta connects to the goes-outta by means of a black box, and in between is where the 'FM' circuit happens!" (Note - "FM" stands for 'F'n Magic', in case you didn't already figure that out).

Quite candidly, I would have been disappointed if Hawking had ever made some type of a strong statement about belief in religion.

Something to consider.

Newton was pretty awesome. Didn't he just write out calculus in real time? Gravity is not the end all tho.

Albert too. He worked in a patent office and some say his wife helped him a bunch. If she did she should get her due.

Hawking had to walk back a few things about black holes.

Don't know the other guy.


They are just human. mistakes and brilliance. we all do it.

Some just get more attention than others.

Depends on who's watching.

thing is though , these ideas , they seem to come to physicists when they are always out walking in nature !
and we stand on the shoulder of giants in our advancement of physics!

What im hinting at though is these ideas seem to come from outwith the human mind , as if the idea is handed to them somehow
in that are these ideas really ours ? or are they from the divine source ?

I read the book Quantum , and it explains all the correspondence and discussion going on in the debate on quantum mechanics and newtonian physics and the theory of everything, and the various meetings they all had to discuss it
between Neils Bohr and Einstein and heisenberg and the rest of the gang !

really good book

Quantum

a reply to: VashTheStampede
Well, we can't know for sure what was going on in his heart. Roger Penrose (with whom he won the 1988 Wolf Prize for their contribution to our understanding of the universe) freely admitted though that some of the content in his book "The Grand Design" was "hardly science" and that it was a bit far-fetched (at least that's the impression I got from the way he talks about it); he's also in the film A Brief History of Time that made Stephen Hawking so famous among the general public (they worked together on a number of subjects that made Stephen Hawking more famous).

And there were of course other subjects he was wrong about as well (connected to the M-theory discussed above; keypoints are at 22:05 and in particular 22:46, the rest preceding that is a bit technical, sorry for that; you may want to see the introductionary remarks at 2:01 - 3:00 in case you don't know how what's discussed in the video above relates to what's discussed below, Stephen Hawking is mentioned shortly before 3 minutes, if you go that way, you might as well continue on to 20:51 rather than 22:05 to hear a bit more about it, this is all related to an important misinterpretation and misconception people have of the meaning of Quantum Mechanics and as applied in for example Quantum Cosmology):

Btw, Freeman Dyson seems to be a bit more honest about these subjects than the Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss, etc. clique (just listing the celebrity or 'rockstar' physicists this time).

Anyway, there are plenty of good (astro)physicists left, I'll leave you with some names and quotations of scientists that may be worth listening to and learning cosmology, astronomy, physics or mathematics from:

“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”​—Edward Milne, British cosmologist. (he may have predicted the cosmic microwave background radiation before anyone else, this became important regarding most of Stephen Hawking's, Penrose's, Fred Hoyle's and others' work; he died of Parkinson's disease though, another nasty one that is similar to ALS, not that many people in the media making a big deal out of his contributions to science though in spite of his disease, which is pretty impressive as well, and his honesty and scientific integrity also deserves some praise)

“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”​—Alexander Polyakov, Russian mathematician.

Prominent academics and scientists who have gone on record as subscribing to the idea of “an Intelligent Designer” include physicists John Polkinghorne and Freeman Dyson (I already mentioned him, he's got a Wolf Prize as well, among numerous other awards, you also may have heard of a Dyson sphere once or twice, especially if you watch a lot of science-fiction like me, he's described as a nondenominational Christian on his wiki-page); astronomer Allan Sandage; and others too numerous to list.

One major question has to do with the fine-tuning of our cosmos. “The overall organization of the universe has suggested to many a modern astronomer an element of design,” wrote physicist Paul Davies. To many reasoning minds, the explanation simply has to be something more than mere coincidence. John Polkinghorne, formerly a physicist at Cambridge University, concluded: “When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”

Australian physicist Paul Davies made a similar point: “There is no doubt that many scientists are . . . scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle.” He added: “Personally I do not share their scorn. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, . . . an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.” According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue. He also writes: “As the cosmic drama unfolds, it looks as if there is a script​—a coherent scheme of things . . . Nature is not an arbitrary juxtaposition of events but the manifestation of ingeniously interweaving mathematical laws.”

“I cannot imagine the universe and human life without an intelligent beginning, without a source of spiritual ‘warmth’ that lies beyond matter and its laws.”​—ANDREY DMITRIYEVICH SAKHAROV, NUCLEAR PHYSICIST, RUSSIA

Geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: “In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity.”

He's talking about this:
Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist: Real science, knowledge of realities compared to philosophies and stories)

a reply to: whereislogic
The video below relates to the earlier video with Freeman Dyson:

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

He disrespects a great man who just passed, and brought more to the world than his sorry butt could even conceive.

Agree

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
Probably aborted 1000 times a year.
Ya think? or only stupid people get ripped apart before they are born?

I'd say it's a crapshoot. The percentages of geniuses aborted is probably about the same as in the general population. It's not that we're short of geniuses, or people. It's not like, "let's have a lot of babies because one of them might grow up to solve this baffling population problem!"

I notice a lot of people still calling him 'Hawkins'

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
I notice a lot of people still calling him 'Hawkins'

2 years from now that will be a Mandela Effect silliness

a reply to: Sillyolme

RIP Stephen. We will miss ya

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You seem to be suffering from the delusion that Einstein came from Mars and didn't have the benefit of knowledge of his predecessors. Nothing is further from the truth, Einstein did not work from inside a vacuum. In relation (pun intended) to Newton he improved Newton's model of gravitation by figuring out how to apply it a whole body of problems that did not involve Newton's 'ideal domain'. And he did so by building on James Maxwell's work on Electro-Dynamics. Einstein himself said he "stood on the shoulders of Maxwell" not Newton, and Maxwell is considered the greatest Physicist between Newton and Einstein.

I don't think naming Newton as one of the four greatest physicists needs much in the way of defense. Are you suggesting otherwise? I didn't understand your comment there.

Feynman's 'defining' work (in addition to his Nobel winning work in quantum electrodynamics) was the Feynman Diagram, an absolutely fundamental tool in working in quantum mechanics. He was also possibly one of the greatest actual TEACHERS of science.

Finally, I completely disagree with your dismissal of Hawking because 'he had the benefit of Einstein before him". That is a silly, trite, and completely wrong view of greatness. The fact is that Hawking changed our view of how the universe works in very fundamental ways - and he did it standing on the shoulders of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, and many others. That is what scientists do, that is how science works.

So you don't like my choices. Do you prefer Schrodinger perhaps? Without Schrodinger we wouldn't have the transistor and all the technology that comes from that. A perfectly reasonable choice, Schrodinger.

But I asked for 'discussion', not just carping. Please discuss. Who's on your physics "Mt. Rushmore"?

a reply to: whereislogic

Btw, Freeman Dyson seems to be a bit more honest about these subjects than the Stephen Hawking, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, Lawrence Krauss, etc. clique (just listing the celebrity or 'rockstar' physicists this time).

In what way are any of these physicists 'less honest' than Dyson? What do you mean by 'honest' in this regard. Is it just that he said something that aligns with your personal prejudices or did he just say the same thing as the others but in a way that is more understandable to you? Or are you suggesting that the others are lying?

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that." - Richard Feynman, 1974 'On Cargo Cult Science' : commencement address to the graduating class at California Institute of Technology.

Please expand on your comment, don't leave such a contentious throw-away line dangling without explaining what you mean.

a reply to: rnaa

Please expand on your comment, don't leave such a contentious throw-away line dangling without explaining what you mean.

The Internet would lose a lot of weight* overnight if it wasn't for contentious throw-away lines.

* and animosity!