Hawking Back in The News Again

[Brazoo]

I read something which might have explained this but forgot where I read it. My feeble attempt follows. This sounds like real Doctor Who stuff but is very interesting:

There are 4 forces of nature which had to have been combined as one at the begining of the universe to make the Unified Field Theory possible. Apparently the problem has always been Gravity. Gravity does not begin nor end. Gravity is the consequence of the curvature of space-time. Any object existing in space-in reality-curves space and time and has a gravitational field. The bigger the object the stronger the field. Has anyone ever seen Cosmos w/Carl Sagan? Have you ever seen the bit where he shows the metal ball on the rubber graph? He rolls a smaller ball towards the bigger one and when it gets close it's trajectory changes. If the larger ball were not there the smaller one would continue on it's original course unaffected. That is space-time curvature.

Scientists can't quite explain gravity because in comparison to the other forces of nature it's too weak. They feel gravity should be so strong it would prevent life from existing in this universe. Why is gravity so weak? They figured it out mathematically and reverse engineered the problem. They came to the conclusion that gravity does not originate here in this dimension. Gravity reaches us after passing thru 10 other dimensions which sap its energy and weaken it. We are in the 11th dimension. They feel that the power of gravity passing thru these dimensions can cause the dimensions to rub against each other and cause a giant explosion, ( like the Big Bang). This means universes can be created again and again without anyone's intervention. It just happens. Gravity is always on like the current from the Electric Co. but never begins and ends.

That's some of what I remember but it was a long time ago so that's probably not the whole thing. I don't know what the structure of the dimensions are meant to look like or how they exist letting gravity pass thru them without touching ordinarily. It really does read like a Doctor Who episode.

Man - I would LOVE to get my hands on the Cosmos DVDs. I know I'm going to love that show.

[Zemo]

Seriously - the guy is probably the best known physicist on the planet. He's a big brain and wrote a well-received and famous book - A Brief History of Time - that sought to explain the current physics theories on creation and formation of the Universe from year zero to the current day to the masses.

It's not like he's some nutjob getting airtime because he's wacky. He's one of the foremost scientific thinkers of our time.

I don't really have an opinion on the quote other than it's bound to PO a lot of people.

Let's not bring any of that here, please.

You just did.

[spamn]

You just did.

Not really. I responded to someone who was trivializing a learned and respected man by comparing him to a leader or member of a cult. It rubbed me wrong because the guy's up there with Einstein and Sagan.

The bigger controversy involves religion and I have not and will not touch that here.

[Adam West]

I'm not sure this kind of conversation needs to invoke any controversy.

I don't think science can prove or disprove the existence of god - and matters of faith have nothing to do with science. In my view (and a lot of other much smarter people's views) there really shouldn't be a debate between the two.

It's definitely going to invoke controversy just by its very nature but as long as is it is discussed in a civil manner.

I'm not even looking at it from any kind of religious point of view....I'm just reading it from a scientific point of view and the quotes just don't seem to follow scientific logic....to me at least.

I did look at the wikipedia article and the other article and it still made no sense to me. It even said that the Something from Nothing argument is a philosophical argument and reading about the offsetting effects of different things also make no sense. They still have to come from somewhere at least from a scientific point of view. I wish they would explain their theories in layman's terms. I am an intelligent person and have taken advanced astronomy classes but why can't these theories be explained in language that isn't so far above our heads that it is impossible to understand?

[Bill]

Okay, four beers and now I'm home with a little wine, and still Hawking is way beyond me. The concept of nothing is just something I cannot grasp, so I can't follow what he's saying. I'm a smart guy, but "nothing" boggles my mind.
As advanced as the Roman Empire and Egypt were at their time, only the Mesoamericans had a grasp on and daily use of zero. Now imagine that encompassing (or not) everything (or nothing).
I suspect there will be more wine as the night goes on, so feel free to enlighten me to the concept of nothing.

[Zemo]

Okay, four beers and now I'm home with a little wine, and still Hawking is way beyond me. The concept of nothing is just something I cannot grasp, so I can't follow what he's saying. I'm a smart guy, but "nothing" boggles my mind.
As advanced as the Roman Empire and Egypt were at their time, only the Mesoamericans had a grasp on and daily use of zero. Now imagine that encompassing (or not) everything (or nothing).
I suspect there will be more wine as the night goes on, so feel free to enlighten me to the concept of nothing.

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_DV54ddNHE

[The Toyroom]

Mmmmmm...brain hurts.....

[Brazoo]

It's definitely going to invoke controversy just by its very nature but as long as is it is discussed in a civil manner.

I'm not even looking at it from any kind of religious point of view....I'm just reading it from a scientific point of view and the quotes just don't seem to follow scientific logic....to me at least.

That's cool man. I wasn't trying to say you were - I just wanted to point out that the "something from nothing" debate does pop up when discussing these concepts. I just meant that I thought you had a great point and you were on the right track!

I think that you're right - and I think the article that started this discussion was worded so it would start controversy - but in my view it's illogical for science vs. religion debates to even happen.

If Hawking is saying: 'because of science we don't require god to explain where the universe came from' that's just factually true, and it's a non-controversy to my way of thinking, because most people can believe that fact AND believe in things that require faith without conflict.

Faith shouldn't be threatened by science because faith can encompass any scientific concept. All a person of faith has to do is acknowledging that it looks like god created the universe to seem like it could have happened without any divinity so that we could study his creation. That's it.

Science is more limited - it doesn't go the other way - you can't have faith in science. Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine loves to use this cartoon to quickly explain why that doesn't work:


So, to me religion and science are separate and non-competing.

I did look at the wikipedia article and the other article and it still made no sense to me. It even said that the Something from Nothing argument is a philosophical argument and reading about the offsetting effects of different things also make no sense. They still have to come from somewhere at least from a scientific point of view. I wish they would explain their theories in layman's terms. I am an intelligent person and have taken advanced astronomy classes but why can't these theories be explained in language that isn't so far above our heads that it is impossible to understand?

I totally understand and relate to this feeling. It drives me crazy.

The Big Bang is just one of those things I think - because our brains are so hard-wired to think in terms of linear time. All our language is based on describing things in a linear timeline too. So how can we grasp what happened before time? Just to think about 'before' you need a 'before' to have existed, and how can a 'before' exist without time? And the word 'exist' has the same problem.

So we all want to know "if the Big Bang happened what existed before" and that concept of the question itself is somewhat flawed.

So people try to create models and explain these concepts in normal language, and to some degree the language of these concepts just doesn't exist.

I've found with a lot of ideas that interest me I need to let go and accept the fact that there are theories the average human brain can't totally grasp without complex mathematics - and I barely passed high school math, so there's just no possible way I'm going to completely understand all this stuff.

[bobws]

To me, God created everything including us and the sciences we use to discover the mysteries of creation.
So taking God out of the equation ofunderstanding the universe, is like trying to open a locked door without a key.

[Gorn Captain]

This is a dangerous thread, because it involves religion.
I won't make an elaborate statement, as not to offend, but...

1. Read the man's complete book before knocking it. He is a brilliant scientist, knows how to explain it well, so read it and then make up your mind. I have read his books (I've also read the Bible), and it's not explained in a newspaper article or internet page. If someone were to sum up religion in a few lines ("first there was nothing, then God made some stuff and people, then people messed it up"), that wouldn't do it justice either.

2. There will never be (I think) a result in the match "God vs Science", so let's just respect each other's opinions, our world will not change by one person saying "God is all", and the other saying "Science is all". I have the utmost respect for religion (all of them), unless they try to impose themselves on others. Respect for all, is the key word.

So inform yourselves first, is my motto....

Btw: Hawking is considered by most scientists to be today's Einstein. Doesn't mean he's always right, but just saying....