Stephen Hawking getting too old...

[desmond]

...he didn't double check his theory. Watch this documentary:

 

According to this video, maybe his book is different, this theory is wrong. The POINT of this video is to show that it began from nothing and they talk about that there is no time for a god to create something...but WHEN? Only when it's a BLACKHOLE!!! So this video suggests that it all began with a blackhole then....but where does the blackhole come from then? There are other flaws, but anyway, you don't need a PhD to realize these errors...

[elfmotat]

Do you need a PhD to be able to make valid commentary on topics like these? Certainly not. Do you need to have some basic knowledge of what you're talking about? Obviously. This is not stuff that laymen can "debunk" with common-sense.

[JMJones0424]

I watched the video, and in the interest of facilitating further conversation, I've made some notes to help others participate in the conversation rather than requiring them to watch the entire video. If the following is in quotes, then it is an exact transcription, otherwise it is the gist of what was being presented at that point of the video. Click on the time to jump directly to that point in the video. I think it is clear that the OP misunderstood the point of the presentation. Hawking is not claiming that the universe arose from a black hole, and he does try to explain how the universe can arise from nothing. Of course, the specifics DO require quite a bit of education to understand, but it doesn't require an exceptional education to understand this presentation.

 

------

 

Hawking begins with the premise that the origin of the universe is a scientific question.

 

A contrast is made between the Vikings, who thought that a god was eating the sun when they witnessed a solar eclipse, and Aristarchus, who questioned whether lunar eclipses were caused by gods and realized it was due to the Earth's shadow falling on the moon. By investigating rather than accepting a mystical answer, he not only answered his original question, but was able to deduce a heliocentric model of the solar system and that stars were distant suns. He realized that the movement of heavenly bodies was governed by natural laws rather than by gods. This is one of the themes of this presentation, that scientific inquiry enlightens mankind, whereas mystical explanations have not been shown to have value in the quest for understanding our surroundings.

 

 

"I believe the discovery of these laws has been humankind's greatest achievement. For it's these laws of nature, as we now call them, that will tell us whether we need a god to explain the universe at all. "

 

"If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask, "What role is there for god?" This is a big part of the contradiction between science and religion, and although my views have recently made headlines, it is actually an ancient conflict."

 

"Science does not deny religion, it just offers a simpler alternative. But several mysteries remain. After all, if the Earth moves, could it be god that moves it? Ultimately, did god create the universe in the first place?"

 

Three ingredients needed to "cook-up" a universe: a) matter b)energy c) space

 

Where did matter, energy, and space come from? Einstein was the first to realize that two of the three, mass and energy, are like two sides of the same coin. So now, instead of three ingredients, we are left with two: energy and space.

 

Space and energy were created in the Big Bang. How did it all appear out of nothing? For some, this is where god comes back into the picture.

 

The laws of physics demands the existence of negative energy . When the Big Bang produced vast amounts of positive energy, it also produced an equal amount of negative energy. So where is all this negative energy? It's in space. Space itself is a vast store of negative energy, enough to ensure that everything adds up to zero.

 

"So what does that mean on our quest to find out if there is a god? It means that if the universe adds up to nothing, then you don't need a god to create it. The universe is the ultimate free lunch."

 

Since we know that the positive and negative in the universe adds up to zero, all we need to do is work out what, or who, triggered the whole process in the first place.

 

In the quantum world, something for nothing happens all the time.

 

Did god create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? Science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator.

 

Space and time are intertwined, and at the Big Bang, time itself began. Inside a black hole, time ceases to exist.

 

"The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a grand designer and revealing how the universe created itself."

 

"You can't get to a time before the Big Bang because there was no 'before the Big Bang'. We have finally found something that doesn't have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me, this means there is no possibility of a creator, because there was no time for a creator to exist in."

 

"So when people ask if a god created the universe, I tell them that the question itself makes no sense. Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for god to make the universe in. It's like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere, it doesn't have an edge. So looking for it is a futile exercise. We are each free to believe what we want, and it's my view that the simpliest explanation is, 'There is no god'. No one created the universe, and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization: There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful."

 

-----

Ultimately, I was disappointed that so little time was devoted to the crux of his argument:

 

1) There is no need to invoke god to explain why matter, energy, and time exist.

2) The only realm left for a creating entity is then in the Big Bang itself. Since the question of "What existed before the Big Bang?" is as meaningless as "Where is the edge of the Earth?", invoking a god that existed prior to the Big Bang to kick the whole mess off is neither necessary nor productive.

 

Personally, I prefer Sagan's approach to the question of god in Cosmos episode 10:

"If the general picture, however, of a Big Bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter suddenly, somehow created? How did that happen? In many cultures, the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: 'Where did god come from?' If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed? There's no need for a creation, it was always here. These are not easy questions. Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."

 

In short, if the scientific explanation of the natural world is insufficient for you, if you feel the existence of the universe necessitates a creator, then why doesn't the existence of a creator necessitate a creator of creators? To conclude that a god or gods must have been responsible for the origin of the universe is to deny the question all together.

Edited July 20, 2012 by JMJones0424

[desmond]

Well first, I am not a believer of god, and there is nothing wrong with that, but then again, I'm not a believer of science either and with that also, there shouldn't be any problem with that. For some people, this might be enough to ask why am I on these forums? Well, that's another subject. But for now, let's look more into this question that I asked.

 

If you start a theory, no matter in what field, you have to correctly and precisely know what you are talking about, cause otherwise, there is no point in making that theory in the first place, it's a simple waste of time then. The correct and precise part simply comes to asking "all" related questions on the subject. In this case, if my theory would have been the same as Professor Hawking, isn't one of the most interesting questions to ask, and yet not even touched upon in this documentary (or even book), is: what exactly is "nothing"?

 

Let's think about it for a moment. I want you to read this text and think in your head as you read to have an image. "something" appears "from" "nothing". Isn't it obvious that the "nothing" is indeed a "place". If "something" right now appears before you, well guess what? It appeared in a space (location), it doesn't matter where, it just matters that it appeared in a "location", or rather "somewhere". So, based on that, if your theory is based around "something" "from" "nothing", that for me, can only mean that even "nothing" is maybe "something". I mean think about it, this is like 1+1=2. For "something" to appear from "nothing", the word FROM suggests that it came from a "place", what does "from" mean then if not related to a location? or does science has it's own "from"?

 

So, this is only one problem, only ONE problem with this theory of his. Also...."nothing"...how does "nothing" look like? If "something" appeared "from" "nothing", how does "nothing" look like? Because according to simple logic, again 1+1=2, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "anything" when in conjunction with the words "from" or "appears from" to be nothing other than a "LOCATION". There is simply no other way... how would you explain or anyone explain what does "from" mean? FROM is related to a PLACE and that's it. Unless you change the definition, that is what it is. Again, maybe crazy scientists created a new definition of "from", I don't know, but for me, you have to KNOW when doing a theory, what words you use and how you use them to explain something and in this case, clearly, or at least that video, didn't explain it correctly.

 

Maybe that is the problem these days, too busy making new theories, but meanwhile, not really knowing what exactly is "written" on that paper, is there a "logic" to that...

 

Anyway, I cannot wait to see who will have the courage to argue with what I just said.

 

Do you need a PhD to be able to make valid commentary on topics like these? Certainly not. Do you need to have some basic knowledge of what you're talking about? Obviously. This is not stuff that laymen can "debunk" with common-sense.

 

PhD is just a "title". PhD does not make anyone smarter. Lot of people without a PhD are actually smarter than those with one. Lot of PhD people do not even know how to fix a car, basic knowledge that everyone should have, instead of wasting your money in a repair shop. But no, most PhD people do not know how to fix a car and that is very sad.

 

Common-sense? What is common-sense for you? If for you common-sense means a vision or theory that is shared with most people, I challenge you to find on this planet ONE person with the same vision as you have, there is no such person. Everyone thinks differently and that's what makes it more interesting actually. Again, find me one person with common sense as you have and if you do, WOW!

[JMJones0424]

Isn't it obvious that the "nothing" is indeed a "place".

 

No, it isn't obvious at all. The Big Bang proposes that all "places" of which you speak originated from the Big Bang and did not exist prior to then. Instead, I think the problems you speak of are more likely due to the Dunning-Kruger effect- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

[desmond]

No, it isn't obvious at all. The Big Bang proposes that all "places" of which you speak originated from the Big Bang and did not exist prior to then. Instead, I think the problems you speak of are more likely due to the Dunning-Kruger effect- "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

 

Not what is nothing by itself, because yes that is not obvious. But I meant nothing in context with the word FROM

means that nothing is a location, so it is obvious.

 

Let me ask you something. The Big Bang to do what it did, it had to exist in order to do that no? Existence of something is related to a location. You "exist" because you are located somewhere. Something that is not located anywhere in this world does not exist. So, if the Big Bang really existed, let me ask you...where? Where did the Big Bang exist for it to do what it did? Not where meaning literally, but just where? In a form of "space"? If you cannot understand that the existence of something is related to it's location, well in that case, the Big Bang did not create anything, because it didn't exist. If it did, where?

 

and btw, the Big Bang theory is:

1) just a theory

2) not proven

and it's somehow considered a model? In that case, everyone can do his own model, because according to those

two points, it's just a theory and it's not proven. So why is not mine or John's or Eric's model better or even considered? It seems to me like this Big Bang is not any different than a Bible, you follow it and for you there is

absolutely no other way... well, that is sad.

Edited July 22, 2012 by desmond

[MigL]

Theories are modelled mathematically Desmond. There is no ambiguity about mathematical meaning, at least if you have a PhD and undestand the math, as there is with words.

 

Arguing about meaning and context of the words 'nothing' and 'from' may seem common sense to you, but it is not.

Edited July 22, 2012 by MigL

[desmond]

Theories are modelled mathematically Desmond. There is no ambiguity about mathematical meaning, at least if you have a PhD and undestand the math, as there is with words.

 

Arguing about meaning and context of the words 'nothing' and 'from' may seem common sense to you, but it is not.

 

First, you do not need a PhD or any title to understand something.

If you honestly think you do, wow.. but anyway.

 

Let me show you quickly why math does not solve all problems in "real" life.

Let's say you go to buy one apple and you forgot and you actually had to buy

another one, so you do. Now, you come back and tell this story to your friend

and he says "so you bought two apples". Really? According to a mathematical

model, this situation would be x + x = 2x, where x is the apple. But in math,

x is equal everywhere in an equation, how about in real life? In real life, for

this equation to make sense, it would mean that BOTH apples are EXACTLY

the SAME, and what are the chances of that? I don't think so, YET, that is how

that would have been modeled. But then again, is it here the QUANTITY (2), or

the PROPERTIES (color, shape, etc)? If it's quantity, why isn't this mathematically

just x + x = 2, since you do not care about the properties? If you care about

the properties, then that model cannot be applied to real life. So this shows

that, yes, you can USE math to SHOW something, but then again, how is that

really true when it comes to real life?

 

According to your last sentence, it seems to me as if any scientist could have written

anything in a book and you do not care to analyze really what that means? So you

just read, close the book and that's it? You do not ask yourself some questions?

Words, my friend, are VERY important, not just in science, but wherever. You cannot

be a scientist and write anything, I mean are you kidding me right now? Like seriously?

Again, I do understand it's not easy to NOT accept a theory since it was brainwashed

in your head, but then again, ask yourself some questions.

Edited July 22, 2012 by desmond

[elfmotat]

That's one of the most facepalm inducing things I've ever read.

[desmond]

That's one of the most facepalm inducing things I've ever read.

 

Dude, if you don't have anything to bring to the table, there is no point whatsoever

in wasting your time with those kind of replies. You don't bring anything to the table,

maybe because you don't have anything, so just stay out of this if you don't know

what to reply with. This is a forum, it's discussion, maybe I hurt your feelings or something,

but bring something to the table that we can discuss with, not just a one sentence like that

and call it a day, I mean come on dude. Play ball or play somewhere else, you know what

I mean. I didn't insult anyone with what I said, and try to prove me wrong if you can. If you

can't, better stay out then replying with just one sentences, at some degree, that is

considered spam. Thank you for understanding.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Everybody, get back on topic.

In this thread, the amount of science per post went down, while the amount of bitching went up. The bitching stops now.

[elfmotat]

!

Moderator Note

Everybody, get back on topic.

 

In this thread, the amount of science per post went down, while the amount of bitching went up. The bitching stops now.

 

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the topic is. As far as I can tell, it seems to be a fallacious argument about how Hawking is wrong. I have yet to see a good point a the from the OP. I also see no "bitching," as you describe it. Most threads of this quality would have been moved to speculations at this point.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

JMJones0424 made a decent post (post #3). I do not wish to get involved in the topic itself, but it seems that his post should enable some discussion.

I agree that this thread is not developing well, and many posts seem off-topic. The few decent posts are the only reason it's still open. Now, please either get back on topic or don't post. If you do not know what the topic is, I suggest the latter option.

Also, please don't reply to my mod comments, so we don't further derail the thread. If you have anything to say regarding the mod comment, use the report function, or create a post in the Suggestions, Comments and Support section.

[YunyunCitrus]

http://youtu.be/grvemUlzUXA

At 19.04mins, there's a theory about multiverse, and how the universes come to be. So in that theory, it's an energy spark that caused the big bang. And in another theory in string theory, it's two branes bumping into each other that caused the big bang. So then maybe there is a begining before the big bang, but since they're only theories but without much proof, Stephen Hawking didn't mention them, and just said that there's nothing before the big bang

 

That's just my thought

[JMJones0424]

Yeah, this was my problem with Hawking's approach as well. While it may be appropriate to say that asking, "What happened before the Big Bang?" is meaningless in terms of cause and effect in this universe, the fact that this universe arose from a singularity from which time originates doesn't seem to me to exclude any causal factors prior to the existence of the universe. Perhaps my ignorance is preventing me from understanding Hawking's point, but I wish he'd gone into more detail in this area rather than just stating it as an accepted fact.

[Ad Iudicium]

First, you do not need a PhD or any title to understand something.

If you honestly think you do, wow.. but anyway.

 

Let me show you quickly why math does not solve all problems in "real" life.

Let's say you go to buy one apple and you forgot and you actually had to buy

another one, so you do. Now, you come back and tell this story to your friend

and he says "so you bought two apples". Really? According to a mathematical

model, this situation would be x + x = 2x, where x is the apple. But in math,

x is equal everywhere in an equation, how about in real life? In real life, for

this equation to make sense, it would mean that BOTH apples are EXACTLY

the SAME, and what are the chances of that? I don't think so, YET, that is how

that would have been modeled. But then again, is it here the QUANTITY (2), or

the PROPERTIES (color, shape, etc)? If it's quantity, why isn't this mathematically

just x + x = 2, since you do not care about the properties? If you care about

the properties, then that model cannot be applied to real life. So this shows

that, yes, you can USE math to SHOW something, but then again, how is that

really true when it comes to real life?

 

According to your last sentence, it seems to me as if any scientist could have written

anything in a book and you do not care to analyze really what that means? So you

just read, close the book and that's it? You do not ask yourself some questions?

Words, my friend, are VERY important, not just in science, but wherever. You cannot

be a scientist and write anything, I mean are you kidding me right now? Like seriously?

Again, I do understand it's not easy to NOT accept a theory since it was brainwashed

in your head, but then again, ask yourself some questions.

 

Lepton, while I do applaud your attempt to use logic in all your arguments (especially considering how scarce logical thinking is these days) I have to criticize your use of "x+x=2x" as a reason as to why mathematics doesn't accurately model the world around us.

"Apple" like all other words in every human language is a generalization, the term "apple" does not take into consideration every individual apple's characteristics, if we were to do so without having to describe indefinitely (the apple has a mass of 152 grams, with a stick that tilts 30 degrees off a straight upward line etc to ensure only a single apple is individually described) we would have to come up with a new word for every single new thing we encounter so every object (every apple for example) would have a different name that pertains solely to it - this would be impractical to say the least. Instead of get caught in all the impracticality we instead generalize and say "apple" describes all objects with defined general characteristics. Similarly in the equation x+x=2x the variable x could be given the value of 1 apple (apple defined as above), since that is the only way the equation could be used relevantly to your example, x+x=2x is as descriptive as the sentence 1 apple plus 1 apple equals to 2 apples.

 

 

In short your argument suggests that math does not take into consideration the properties of the objects involved, my answer is that neither does language - you don't describe the exact mass of an apple you want if you want to send somebody to the shops, do you? Or the exact elasticity of a rubber band you want bought? Or the exact temperature and chemical composition of the soda you want. The reason we don't describe the exact properties of an object both in language and in mathematics is simply down to the fact that it would make both language and mathematics impractical tools of communication - humans never take into account all of an objects properties simply because it would be illogical to do so. I hope you see from my argument that the term apple is no more descriptive in a sentence than the variable x is in an equation. In your example above the friend is as descriptive as the equation because his sentence doesn't take into consideration all of the properties of the apple either - we don't do that in "real life" and so math is perfectly suitable for modelling "real life".

 

Anyway in reference to the physics perhaps string theory is correct and there are another 7 dimensions we simply fail to experience, and some particles are capable of experiencing and travelling in and out of these dimensions. In that case is it not possible that prior to the big bang the singularity (according to the inflationary theory) that existed existed in the extra-spatial dimensions and then when it expanded it formed a positive bias towards the space-time we perceive and that explains why the other dimensions (as believed by string theorists) are infinitesimally small.

 

Alternatively we could take into consideration the possibility that brane- theory is right and that a our membrane of space existed prior to what we call the big bang and it was simply populated with energy (latter converted to matter) by a collision with another brane. However is must be noted that both these theories have logical flaws as they lead simply to another level of creation that we cannot explain - the question of creation is perhaps unavoidably an example of the Munchhausen trilemma because it leads either to circular regression (the universe exists because it exists exemplified by brane theory), axiomatic regression (the universe exists because of something we must take as fact ie the unquestionable existence of a god or a singularity we cannot explain - shown by religion and "non-string theory" inflation) or infinite regression (where we can search for a cause ad infinitum).

 

However you should note that I am not a physicist, simply a 15 year old Kenyan teenager, therefore I am hardly an informed opinion. However you do not need a formal education to question, because everybody has the right, ability and perhaps even the duty to live an examined life.

[WHR]

Lepton, while I do applaud your attempt to use logic in all your arguments (especially considering how scarce logical thinking is these days) I have to criticize your use of "x+x=2x" as a reason as to why mathematics doesn't accurately model the world around us.

"Apple" like all other words in every human language is a generalization, the term "apple" does not take into consideration every individual apple's characteristics, if we were to do so without having to describe indefinitely (the apple has a mass of 152 grams, with a stick that tilts 30 degrees off a straight upward line etc to ensure only a single apple is individually described) we would have to come up with a new word for every single new thing we encounter so every object (every apple for example) would have a different name that pertains solely to it - this would be impractical to say the least. Instead of get caught in all the impracticality we instead generalize and say "apple" describes all objects with defined general characteristics. Similarly in the equation x+x=2x the variable x could be given the value of 1 apple (apple defined as above), since that is the only way the equation could be used relevantly to your example, x+x=2x is as descriptive as the sentence 1 apple plus 1 apple equals to 2 apples.

 

 

In short your argument suggests that math does not take into consideration the properties of the objects involved, my answer is that neither does language - you don't describe the exact mass of an apple you want if you want to send somebody to the shops, do you? Or the exact elasticity of a rubber band you want bought? Or the exact temperature and chemical composition of the soda you want. The reason we don't describe the exact properties of an object both in language and in mathematics is simply down to the fact that it would make both language and mathematics impractical tools of communication - humans never take into account all of an objects properties simply because it would be illogical to do so. I hope you see from my argument that the term apple is no more descriptive in a sentence than the variable x is in an equation. In your example above the friend is as descriptive as the equation because his sentence doesn't take into consideration all of the properties of the apple either - we don't do that in "real life" and so math is perfectly suitable for modelling "real life".

 

Anyway in reference to the physics perhaps string theory is correct and there are another 7 dimensions we simply fail to experience, and some particles are capable of experiencing and travelling in and out of these dimensions. In that case is it not possible that prior to the big bang the singularity (according to the inflationary theory) that existed existed in the extra-spatial dimensions and then when it expanded it formed a positive bias towards the space-time we perceive and that explains why the other dimensions (as believed by string theorists) are infinitesimally small.

 

Alternatively we could take into consideration the possibility that brane- theory is right and that a our membrane of space existed prior to what we call the big bang and it was simply populated with energy (latter converted to matter) by a collision with another brane. However is must be noted that both these theories have logical flaws as they lead simply to another level of creation that we cannot explain - the question of creation is perhaps unavoidably an example of the Munchhausen trilemma because it leads either to circular regression (the universe exists because it exists exemplified by brane theory), axiomatic regression (the universe exists because of something we must take as fact ie the unquestionable existence of a god or a singularity we cannot explain - shown by religion and "non-string theory" inflation) or infinite regression (where we can search for a cause ad infinitum).

 

However you should note that I am not a physicist, simply a 15 year old Kenyan teenager, therefore I am hardly an informed opinion. However you do not need a formal education to question, because everybody has the right, ability and perhaps even the duty to live an examined life.

I am flabbergasted at how well written and well thought out this post is, coming from a 15 year old. Particularly your last sentence. That is the most poignant sentence that has probably been "spoken" in this forum. You are wiser than many men 3X your age a little joke there if you get it.

 

You are as informed an opinion as anyone, simply because you ARE and because you THINK and because you are confined to the same limitations that we all have..mainly being human. If complementing a 15 year old is an off topic comment and subject to punishment, so be it.