Stephen Hawking argues time did not begin with the Big Bang. It was just going in a different direction.

  • metta

    Posts: 44752

    Mar 06, 2018 4:32 AM GMT
    Stephen Hawking argues time did not begin with the Big Bang. It was just going in a different direction.


    Stephen Hawking argues time did not begin with the Big Bang. It was just going in a different direction.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/stephen-hawking-argues-time-did-not-begin-with-the-big-bang-it-was-just-going-in-a-different-direction/news-story/0c36b41d82c13eab2e8b92b9b974010b
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2188

    Mar 06, 2018 5:06 PM GMT
    Yeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.

    Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2018 5:27 PM GMT
    Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe.
    No way round!

    It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.
    That's the point

    If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.
    Ad hominem
    sputum
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 06, 2018 5:37 PM GMT
    bro4bro saidYeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.

    Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.


    What an awesome critical take. I'd love to read your physics and mathematics papers sometime, where you hand Stephen Hawking his ass.
  • NealJohn

    Posts: 355

    Mar 06, 2018 11:03 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    bro4bro saidYeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.

    Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.


    What an awesome critical take. I'd love to read your physics and mathematics papers sometime, where you hand Stephen Hawking his ass.


    You do realize that physics and mathematics are constantly changing? Save for a few certain constants. Stephen Hawking is an angry cripple who understands nothing about the universe. Like him, I'm sure you believe there is no creator, and that's where you all err. Go ahead, say you don't believe in God because you don't see him, though any rational person would have to agree there is intelligent design to the universe. But if the next time you doubt something you can't see think about love , hate, instincts, or even the human spirit. It doesn't take a genius to refute Stephen Hawking or the people who worship him, just common sense
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2188

    Mar 07, 2018 4:32 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    bro4bro saidYeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.

    Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.


    What an awesome critical take. I'd love to read your physics and mathematics papers sometime, where you hand Stephen Hawking his ass.


    In fact, bunkie, I am a physicist. And yeah I could show you a few papers I've published but I don't think you'd understand them. But never fear, my work has nothing to do with Hawking's.

    Here's my point: This "new" idea of Hawking's was adequately covered in his pop culture book A Brief History of Time (published in 1988 ). Somehow it failed to take the physics community by storm. Why? Because it's one possibility that happens to fit, if his mathematical model happens to be correct. But there's no way to tell if his model is correct.

    So, why is this suddenly news now? Because he's a celebrity. Because he's been anointed as The World's Smartest Guy by people who couldn't physics their way out of a paper sack. So, his every word is hailed as a pearl of arcane wisdom - even if the rest of the physics community yawned over it 30 years ago.

    There are a number of theories about what came before the Big Bang. But Hawking's theory is automatically assumed to be correct by everyone who knows nothing about it, only because he's a celebrity. And yeah, that pisses the rest of us off.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2018 4:46 AM GMT
    I'm reluctant to venture out into a conversation with some guys who are obviously much smarter than I am.

    But touches upon a question that's always perplexed me about the Big Bang theory. Why should it have happened? What made it happen? If there was nothing before it, how could nothing make a big bang? I read explanations about some incredibly dense particle, from which everything came. Well, where did IT come from? If it came from some previous universe, where did THAT universe come from? Why should anything exist at all?

    Hawkins tries to take us before the Big Bang. It's as much a philosophical exercise as a mathematical one. And who says our parochial human mathematics & equations can solve a problem that's likely more vast than our biological mental processes can comprehend?

    I suspect original thinkers like Hawkins, and Einstein, Newton, Bohr and a few others, may be our best shot at it. But I also suspect I will never know during my lifetime.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2018 2:14 PM GMT
    mickeytopogigio said
    bro4bro saidYeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.

    Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.


    What an awesome critical take. I'd love to read your physics and mathematics papers sometime, where you hand Stephen Hawking his ass.


    LMAO!! +1000
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 07, 2018 11:39 PM GMT
    It is pointless to debate what came before the big bang. For the time in this Universe did not start until the big bang.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 08, 2018 12:56 AM GMT
    BiMeGuy said
    It is pointless to debate what came before the big bang. For the time in this Universe did not start until the big bang.

    Your approach is not very satisfying. To preserve the Big Bang theory, do you not need something to make the bang? If you do not answer that, how can there have a been a Big Bang? A bang from nothing?

    The one presupposes the other, does it not? So what preexisted to make a bang? If you can't answer that, then the Big Bang is disproven. It would appear that is what Hawking is attempting to explore.

    But even then, if he does produce a pre-Bang state, where did THAT come from? We are merely moving the question further back without answering it, like infinite reflections in a mirror.
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1536

    Apr 03, 2018 3:20 AM GMT
    bro4bro said
    mickeytopogigio said
    bro4bro saidYeah he's been quacking about this for years. Obviously there's no physical proof; it's just something that results from the mathematical model he chose to apply to the universe. It's always dangerous to put too much faith in a mathematical model since they're necessarily idealized and limited in application.

    Hawking is a brilliant guy but not on the level of Einstein or Newton or even Paul Dirac. His work isn't revolutionary; it's mostly an extension of the work of others. He's viewed by the pop culture as some sort of genius wizard largely because of his disability. If he wasn't in a wheelchair and didn't communicate with a Speak-and Spell, nobody outside of a small group of physicists would know his name.


    What an awesome critical take. I'd love to read your physics and mathematics papers sometime, where you hand Stephen Hawking his ass.


    In fact, bunkie, I am a physicist. And yeah I could show you a few papers I've published but I don't think you'd understand them. But never fear, my work has nothing to do with Hawking's.

    Here's my point: This "new" idea of Hawking's was adequately covered in his pop culture book A Brief History of Time (published in 1988 ). Somehow it failed to take the physics community by storm. Why? Because it's one possibility that happens to fit, if his mathematical model happens to be correct. But there's no way to tell if his model is correct.

    So, why is this suddenly news now? Because he's a celebrity. Because he's been anointed as The World's Smartest Guy by people who couldn't physics their way out of a paper sack. So, his every word is hailed as a pearl of arcane wisdom - even if the rest of the physics community yawned over it 30 years ago.

    There are a number of theories about what came before the Big Bang. But Hawking's theory is automatically assumed to be correct by everyone who knows nothing about it, only because he's a celebrity. And yeah, that pisses the rest of us off.


    Yes, of course the guy was smart. But alas, Hawking was just a pop-science hack.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 03, 2018 4:33 AM GMT
    Maybe the universe works like a spring in a pogo stick: it's repeatedly stretching (expanding) and then bouncing back (contracting) with no loss of energy. "The" Big Bang would be akin to our pogo spring at the moment before the spring violently expands and thrusts the stick upwards. Stretching out a spring will generate a force to bring it back into equilibrium and so our "Big Bang" repeats itself endlessly (removing the need to ask what happened before the Big Bang).

    This repetitive vibration on a universal scale seems to have a parallel with string theory at the sub-atomic level in quantum mechanics.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2188

    Apr 03, 2018 4:43 PM GMT
    That is in fact one of the popular theories of the universe. Physics professors often refer to it as the "Bang - Crunch" theory. The idea is that the Big Bang causes the universe to expand (as we're now witnessing) until the gravitational attraction of all that cosmic mass overwhelms it and pulls everything back in again. So, the Big Bang is eventually followed by a Big Crunch, which then produces another Big Bang as all the energy in the universe converges at a single point. And so on, again and again.

    By the way, I never intended to represent Hawking as a "pop science hack". He was a brilliant physicist, but his reputation as the World's Smartest Guy was based on his pop culture presence and not his actual work - which, by the way, was not considered groundbreaking enough to be recognized by the Nobel Committee, while others working in the same field of physics have been. Ever hear of Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt and Adam G. Riess (Nobel prize in physics, 2011)? John C. Mather and George F. Smoot (Nobel prize in physics, 2006)? Riccardo Giacconi, Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba (Nobel prize in physics, 2002)? How about Roger Penrose - who was Hawking's research partner in his most well-known and important work? Nope? Ah, I guess that's because they didn't do guest voices on The Simpsons.

    My only problem with Hawking himself is that he was aware of the misplaced idolization bestowed on him by the non-scientific community, took full advantage and seemed to revel in it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 04, 2018 9:25 PM GMT
    Damn. If only I wrote about it 30 years ago; I could have called it the Pogo Stick Theory! It's certainly a better sound bite than the "Bang-Crunch" Theory. That sounds like a potato chip brand name.