AuthorTopic: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings  (Read 11891 times)

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17945
    • View Profile
Re: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2013, 09:36:01 AM »
There probably is no fix for Fukushima. Just a little more poison in the water from now on. A little more unexplained cancer. More infant mortality. Not the end of the world, just another pile of dog shit to contend with...except for a million years.

Thought problem...they had a 5.3 there a couple of days ago, right? What happens to Fukushima when they have a 9.0?

I guess what I'm saying is that I expect it to get worse, not better.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17205
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2013, 10:23:53 AM »
Eddie, while my views coincide with yours; idiotic is not the proper word.

Mr. Hawking may be wrong in our view,  but idiotic is hardly a word that applies to this gentleman.

My entire point in bringing this thread up was how we just seem to disregard the views of highly regarded folks that don't share our views; and is it wise  to do so without proper discussion?  :dontknow:

Idiotic may not be the right word; a more fitting description would be foolish. To me, foolish can be regarded as the opposite of wisdom. My personal definition of wisdom is the correct use and application of multiple fields of knowledge (intelligence) to form deeper and more meaningful truths of reality. In the case of Hawking even though he is highly intelligent in the knowledge of physics his inability to grasp that technology cannot provide solutions results in some of the conclusions he makes as being foolish. The reason I say that is because this belief in technology demonstrates a lack of understanding that the ecological and resource constraints we are suffering from primarily stem from our will as human beings to reproduce and achieve ever increasing prosperity (with a general disregard to limits). This is the fundamental root of our problems and therefore the problem is a behavioural and not technical problem as Hawkings seems to assume with his technological solutions. Since Hawkings is unable or unwilling to apply his vast knowledge of physics to other fields his conclusions cannot be sound because they are limited in scope. To achieve wisdom you need to think laterally and holistically and many great and intelligent scientists are not able to make this final leap.

Monsta, very thoughtful and cogent observation. I wonder myself whether it not more "hubris" than foolishness, a determination that we can invent ourselves out of any corner, and thus forestall any fate.

Techno-optimism is a pretty arrogant position, IMO.

Quote
This is the fundamental root of our problems and therefore the problem is a behavioural and not technical problem as Hawkings seems to assume with his technological solutions..

FWIW, that's the nut of it. Our problems are behavioral-- and ethical-- rather than technological. Our tech has far outstripped our ethical dimension, which, based on anecdotal observation, seems to be going backwards. Future generations may wonder at our shortsightedness at burning petrochemicals, when they are so valuable for some many other uses.

"Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world's grief. Do justly now, love mercy now, walk humbly now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it."

Offline JoeP

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 2148
    • View Profile
Re: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2013, 05:28:13 PM »
Eddie, while my views coincide with yours; idiotic is not the proper word.

Mr. Hawking may be wrong in our view,  but idiotic is hardly a word that applies to this gentleman.

My entire point in bringing this thread up was how we just seem to disregard the views of highly regarded folks that don't share our views; and is it wise  to do so without proper discussion?  :dontknow:

Idiotic may not be the right word; a more fitting description would be foolish. To me, foolish can be regarded as the opposite of wisdom. My personal definition of wisdom is the correct use and application of multiple fields of knowledge (intelligence) to form deeper and more meaningful truths of reality. In the case of Hawking even though he is highly intelligent in the knowledge of physics his inability to grasp that technology cannot provide solutions results in some of the conclusions he makes as being foolish. The reason I say that is because this belief in technology demonstrates a lack of understanding that the ecological and resource constraints we are suffering from primarily stem from our will as human beings to reproduce and achieve ever increasing prosperity (with a general disregard to limits). This is the fundamental root of our problems and therefore the problem is a behavioural and not technical problem as Hawkings seems to assume with his technological solutions. Since Hawkings is unable or unwilling to apply his vast knowledge of physics to other fields his conclusions cannot be sound because they are limited in scope. To achieve wisdom you need to think laterally and holistically and many great and intelligent scientists are not able to make this final leap.

Monsta, very thoughtful and cogent observation. I wonder myself whether it not more "hubris" than foolishness, a determination that we can invent ourselves out of any corner, and thus forestall any fate.

Techno-optimism is a pretty arrogant position, IMO.

Quote
This is the fundamental root of our problems and therefore the problem is a behavioural and not technical problem as Hawkings seems to assume with his technological solutions..

FWIW, that's the nut of it. Our problems are behavioral-- and ethical-- rather than technological. Our tech has far outstripped our ethical dimension, which, based on anecdotal observation, seems to be going backwards. Future generations may wonder at our shortsightedness at burning petrochemicals, when they are so valuable for some many other uses.

Monsta nailed it. Doesn't get much better than this folks. 
just my straight shooting honest opinion

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All
« Reply #18 on: January 27, 2014, 08:50:22 AM »
Stephen Hawking: Black Holes May Not Have 'Event Horizons' After All

natureheader  |  By Zeeya Merali Posted: 01/24/2014 8:49 am EST  |  Updated: 01/25/2014 11:59 am EST

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.

In its stead, Hawking’s radical new proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole.” A full explanation of the process, the physicist admits, would require a theory that successfully merges gravity with the other fundamental forces of nature. But that's a goal that has eluded physicists for nearly a century. “The correct treatment,” Hawking says, “remains a mystery.”

Hawking posted his paper on the arXiv preprint server on 22 January1, and it has yet to pass peer review. He titled it, whimsically, “Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes”.

The paper is an attempt to solve the so-called black-hole firewall paradox, which has been vexing physicists for almost two years, after it was discovered by theoretical physicists Joe Polchinski at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California, and colleagues (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the hole!').

In a thought experiment, the researchers asked what would happen to an astronaut unlucky enough to fall into a black hole. Event horizons are mathematically simple consequences of Einstein's general theory of relativity that were first pointed out by German physicist Karl Schwarzschild in 1916. In that picture, physicists had long assumed, the astronaut would happily pass through the event horizon, unaware of his or her impending doom, before gradually being pulled inwards — stretched out along the way, like spaghetti — and eventually crushed at the 'singularity', the black hole’s hypothetical infinitely dense core.

But on analysing the situation in detail, Polchinski’s team came to the startling realization that the laws of quantum mechanics, which govern particles on small scales, change the situation completely. Quantum theory, they said, dictates that the event horizon must actually be a transformed into a highly energetic region, or 'firewall', that would burn the astronaut to a crisp.

This was alarming because, while the firewall obeyed quantum rules, it flouted Einstein’s general theory of relativity. According to that theory, someone in free fall should perceive the laws of physics as being identical everywhere in the Universe — whether they are falling into a black hole or floating in empty intergalactic space. As far as Einstein is concerned, the event horizon should be an unremarkable place.

Now Hawking proposes a third, tantalizingly simple, option: Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain intact. But black holes simply do not have an event horizon to catch fire. The key to his claim is that quantum effects around the black hole cause spacetime to fluctuate too wildly for a sharp boundary surface to exist.

In place of the event horizon, Hawking invokes an “apparent horizon”, a surface along which light rays attempting to rush away from the black hole’s core will be suspended. In general relativity, for an unchanging black hole, these two horizons are identical, because light trying to escape from inside a black hole can only reach as far as the event horizon and will be held there, as though stuck on a treadmill. However, the two horizons can, in principle, be distinguished. If more matter gets swallowed by the black hole, its event horizon will swell and grow larger than the apparent horizon.

Conversely, in the 1970s Hawking also showed that black holes can slowly shrink, spewing out 'Hawking radiation'. In that case, the event horizon would, in theory, become smaller than the apparent horizon. Hawking’s new suggestion is that the apparent horizon is the real boundary. “The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.

“The picture Hawking gives sounds reasonable,” says Don Page, a physicist and expert on black holes at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, who collaborated with Hawking in the 1970s. “You could say that it is radical to propose there’s no event horizon. But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what spacetime even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

While Page accepts Hawking’s proposal that a black hole could exist without an event horizon, he questions whether that alone is enough to get past the firewall paradox. The presence of even an ephemeral apparent horizon, he cautions, could well induce the same issues an event horizon does.

Unlike the event horizon, the apparent boundary can eventually dissolve. Page notes that Hawking is opening the door to a scenario so extreme “that anything in principle can get out of a black hole”. Although Hawking does not specify in his paper exactly how an apparent horizon would disappear, Page speculates that when it has shrunk to a certain small size, where the effects of both quantum mechanics and gravity combine, it is plausible that it could vanish. At that point, whatever was once trapped within the black hole would be released (although not in good shape).

If Hawking is correct, there could even be no singularity at the core of the black hole. Instead, matter would be only temporarily held behind the apparent horizon, which would gradually move inwards due to the pull of the black hole, but would never quite crunch down to the centre. Information about this matter would not destroyed, but would be highly scrambled so that, as it is released through Hawking radiation, it would be in a vastly different form and it would be almost impossible to work out what the swallowed objects once were.

“It would be worse than trying to reconstruct a book that you burned from its ashes,” says Page. In his paper, Hawking compares it to trying to forecast the weather ahead of time: in theory it is possible, but in practice, it’s too difficult to do with much accuracy.

Polchinski, however, is sceptical that black holes without an event horizon could exist in nature. The kind of violent fluctuations needed to erase it are too rare in the Universe, he says. “In Einstein’s gravity, the black hole horizon is not so different from any other part of space,” says Polchinski. “We never see spacetime fluctuate in our own neighborhood: it is just too rare on large scales.”

Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former student of Hawking's, says that Hawking’s latest contribution highlights how “abhorrent” physicists find the potential existence of firewalls. However he is also cautious about Hawking’s solution. “The idea that there are no points from which you cannot escape a black hole is in some ways an even more radical and problematic suggestion than the existence of firewalls,” says Bousso. “But the fact that we’re still discussing this issue 40 years after Hawking’s first work on black holes is testament to its enormous significance.”

This story originally appeared in Nature News.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/stephen-hawking-black-holes-event-horizons_n_4658220.html?view=print&comm_ref=false  :icon_study: :icon_scratch: :cwmddd:

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
'God Particle' Could Destroy Universe, says Stephen Hawking
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2014, 01:58:03 PM »
God particle' could destroy universe, says Stephen Hawking

God particle: The Higgs boson, frequently referred to as the 'God particle' over the objections of scientists, could usher in a quantum doomsday, says renowned physicist Stephen Hawking.
By Kelly Dickerson, LiveScience Staff Writer September 10, 2014   


                                                             

Simulated data from the Large Hadron Collider particle detector shows the Higgs boson produced after two protons collide. (CERN)   

Stephen Hawking bet Gordon Kane $100 that physicists would not discover the Higgs boson. After losing that bet when physicists detected the particle in 2012, Hawking lamented the discovery, saying it made physics less interesting. Now, in the preface to a new collection of essays and lectures called "Starmus," the famous theoretical physicist is warning that the particle could one day be responsible for the destruction of the known universe.

Hawking is not the only scientist who thinks so. The theory of a Higgs boson doomsday, where a quantum fluctuation creates a vacuum "bubble" that expands through space and wipes out the universe, has existed for a while. However, scientists don't think it could happen anytime soon.

"Most likely it will take 10 to the 100 years [a 1 followed by 100 zeroes] for this to happen, so probably you shouldn't sell your house and you should continue to pay your taxes," Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, said during his lecture at the SETI Institute on Sept. 2. "On the other hand it may already happened, and the bubble might be on its way here now. And you won't know because it's going at the speed of light so there's not going to be any warning." [Doomsday: 9 Real Ways Earth Could End] :o

The Higgs boson, sometimes referred to as the 'god particle,' much to the chagrin of scientists who prefer the official name, is a tiny particle that researchers long suspected existed. Its discovery lends strong support to the Standard Model of particle physics, or the known rules of particle physics that scientists believe govern the basic building blocks of matter. The Higgs boson particle is so important to the Standard Model because it signals the existence of the Higgs field, an invisible energy field present throughout the universe that imbues other particles with mass. Since its discovery two years ago, the particle has been making waves in the physics community.

Now that scientists measured the particle's mass last year, they can make many other calculations, including one that seems to spell out the end of the universe.
Universe doomsday

The Higgs boson is about 126 billion electron volts, or about the 126 times the mass of a proton. This turns out to be the precise mass needed to keep the universe on the brink of instability, but physicists say the delicate state will eventually collapse and the universe will become unstable. That conclusion involves the Higgs field.

The Higgs field emerged at the birth of the universe and has acted as its own source of energy since then, Lykken said. Physicists believe the Higgs field may be slowly changing as it tries to find an optimal balance of field strength and energy required to maintain that strength. [5 Implications of Finding a Higgs Boson Particle]

"Just like matter can exist as liquid or solid, so the Higgs field, the substance that fills all space-time, could exist in two states," Gian Giudice, a theoretical physicist at the CERN lab, where the Higgs boson was discovered, explained during a TED talk in October 2013.

Right now the Higgs field is in a minimum potential energy state — like a valley in a field of hills and valleys. The huge amount of energy required to change into another state is like chugging up a hill. If the Higgs field makes it over that energy hill, some physicists think the destruction of the universe is waiting on the other side.

But an unlucky quantum fluctuation, or a change in energy, could trigger a process called "quantum tunneling." Instead of having to climb the energy hill, quantum tunneling would make it possible for the Higgs field to "tunnel" through the hill into the next, even lower-energy valley. This quantum fluctuation will happen somewhere out in the empty vacuum of space between galaxies, and will create a "bubble," Lykken said.

Here's how Hawking describes this Higgs doomsday scenario in the new book: "The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might become metastable at energies above 100 [billion] gigaelectronvolts (GeV). … This could mean that the universe could undergo catastrophic vacuum decay, with a bubble of the true vacuum expanding at the speed of light. This could happen at any time and we wouldn't see it coming." [10 Implications of Faster-Than-Light Travel]

The Higgs field inside that bubble will be stronger and have a lower energy level than its surroundings. Even if the Higgs field inside the bubble were slightly stronger than it is now, it could shrink atoms, disintegrate atomic nuclei, and make it so that hydrogen would be the only element that could exist in the universe, Giudice explained in his TED talk.

But using a calculation that involves the currently known mass of the Higgs boson, researchers predict this bubble would contain an ultra-strong Higgs field that would expand at the speed of light through space-time. The expansion would be unstoppable and would wipe out everything in the existing universe, Lykken said.

"More interesting to us as physicists is when you do this calculation using the standard physics we know about, it turns out we're right on the edge between a stable universe and an unstable universe," Lykken said. "We're sort of right on the edge where the universe can last for a long time, but eventually it should go 'boom.' There's no principle that we know of that would put us right on the edge."
Not all doom and gloom

Either all of space-time exists on this razor's edge between a stable and unstable universe, or the calculation is wrong, Lykken said.

If the calculation is wrong, it must come from a fundamental part of physics that scientists have not discovered yet. Lykken said one possibility is the existence of invisible dark matter that physicists believe makes up about 27 percent of the universe. Discovering how dark matter interacts with the rest of the universe could reveal properties and rules physicists don't know about yet.

The other is the idea of "supersymmetry." In the Standard Model, every particle has a partner, or its own anti-particle. But supersymmetry is a theory that suggests every particle also has a supersymmetric partner particle. The existence of these other particles would help stabilize the universe, Lykken said.

"We found the Higgs boson, which was a big deal, but we're still trying to understand what it means and we're also trying to understand all the other things that go along with it

"This is very much the beginning of the story and I've shown you some directions that story could go in, but I think there could be surprises that no one has even thought of," Lykken concludes in his lecture.  :-\



Copyright 2014 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
About these ads
© The Christian Science Monitor. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Privacy Policy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0910/God-particle-could-destroy-universe-says-Stephen-Hawking :icon_study: :icon_study: :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch: :icon_scratch:   :dontknow: :WTF:
« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 02:03:52 PM by Golden Oxen »

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 39975
    • View Profile
Re: 'God Particle' Could Destroy Universe, says Stephen Hawking
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2014, 05:01:04 PM »
I think there are more pressing problems than the Universe disappearing in a quantum bubble.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: 'God Particle' Could Destroy Universe, says Stephen Hawking
« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2014, 08:08:22 PM »
I think there are more pressing problems than the Universe disappearing in a quantum bubble.

RE

That's for sure RE, articles like this have their place just the same.

Besides the fact the gents speaking are considered knowledgeable chaps about such matters, I like them because they remind me, at least, that arrogance is usually a vice and humility many times a virtue. There is much going on we know nothing about it seems.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Hawking: Humans at risk of lethal 'own goal'
David Shukman Science editor

    19 January 2016
    From the section Science & Environment

                                             
                      Prof Hawking said humans are creating "new ways things can go wrong"


Humanity is at risk from a series of dangers of our own making, according to Prof Stephen Hawking.


Nuclear war, global warming and genetically-engineered viruses are among the scenarios he singles out.

And he says that further progress in science and technology will create "new ways things can go wrong".

Prof Hawking is giving this year's BBC Reith Lectures, which explore research into black holes, and his warning came in answer to audience questions.

He says that assuming humanity eventually establishes colonies on other worlds, it will be able to survive.

"Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next thousand or ten thousand years.

"By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race.

"However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period."

It is ironic that such a prominent figure in science identifies scientific progress itself as the major source of new threats.

On previous occasions, he has highlighted the potential risks of artificial intelligence (AI) becoming powerful enough to cause the extinction of the human race.

But he insists that ways will be found to cope.

"We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we have to recognise the dangers and control them. I'm an optimist, and I believe we can."

Asked for advice for young scientists, Prof Hawking said they should retain a sense of wonder about "our vast and complex" Universe.

"From my own perspective, it has been a glorious time to be alive and doing research in theoretical physics. There is nothing like the Eureka moment of discovering something that no one knew before."

But he also said that future generations of researchers should be aware of how scientific and technological progress is changing the world, and to help the wider public understand it.

                                         
                               Prof Hawking thinks we will eventually establish colonies in space, but not for another few hundred years

"It's important to ensure that these changes are heading in the right directions. In a democratic society, this means that everyone needs to have a basic understanding of science to make informed decisions about the future.

"So communicate plainly what you are trying to do in science, and who knows, you might even end up understanding it yourself."

Since his diagnosis with motor neurone disease, Prof Hawking's determination to overcome the immense physical challenges of his disability has been a source of worldwide admiration and fascination.

His daughter Lucy, a journalist and writer, who has co-written children's science books with Prof Hawking, was asked to explain his drive.

"I think he's enormously stubborn and has a very enviable wish to keep going and the ability to summon all his reserves, all his energy, all his mental focus and press them all into that goal of keeping going," she said.

"But not just to keep going for the purposes of survival, but to transcend this by producing extraordinary work, writing books, giving lectures, inspiring other people with neurodegenerative and other disabilities, and being a family man, a friend and a colleague to so many people and keeping up with friends across the world.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35344664  :icon_study:

Online Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17945
    • View Profile
Re: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2016, 09:18:23 AM »
"However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period."


Good thing we're being so careful, huh?
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline g

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12280
    • View Profile
Re: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2016, 09:25:09 AM »
"However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period."


Good thing we're being so careful, huh?

A Bull in a China Shop would appear to be a ballerina compared to us,

                                               

Offline azozeo

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 9626
    • View Profile
Re: 'God Particle' Could Destroy Universe, says Stephen Hawking
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2016, 10:05:13 AM »
I think there are more pressing problems than the Universe disappearing in a quantum bubble.

RE



Steve,
Please put down the glass pipe !
Dudes a quack.

(quick side note)
I found out yesterday that Einstein & Sir Isaac Newton, both were dippin' into
the Vedic texts to come up with the brilliant ideas.
Wouldn't be surprised if "da hawk" isn't in the same boat.
I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world.
You don’t know what it is but its there, like a splinter in your mind

Offline edpell

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Controversial Views of Stephen Hawkings
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2016, 10:05:31 AM »
1) Who cares what Hawking has to say about robots?
2) Mythbusters did a bull in a china shop. The bull was agile and did not knock a single piece of china off the shelves.

 

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1205 Views
Last post August 22, 2015, 09:54:40 AM
by knarf
3 Replies
991 Views
Last post January 16, 2017, 02:49:03 PM
by JRM
2 Replies
877 Views
Last post March 05, 2018, 11:31:03 PM
by g