Posted on 11/12/2010 1:18:50 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
From the idea that our universe is one among many, to the revelation that mathematician Pythagoras didn't actually invent the Pythagorean theorem, here are eight shocking things we learned from reading physicist Stephen Hawking's new book, "The Grand Design," written with fellow physicist Leonard Mlodinow of Caltech.
This book, covering major questions about the nature and origin of the universe, was released Sept. 7 by its publisher, Bantam.
1. The past is possibility According to Hawking and Mlodinow, one consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics is that events in the past that were not directly observed did not happen in a definite way. Instead they happened in all possible ways. This is related to the probabilistic nature of matter and energy revealed by quantum mechanics: Unless forced to choose a particular state by direct interference from an outside observation, things will hover in a state of uncertainty.
For example, if all we know is that a particle traveled from point A to point B, then it is not true that the particle took a definite path and we just don't know what it is. Rather, that particle simultaneously took every possible path connecting the two points.
Yeah, we're still trying to wrap our brains around this.
The authors sum up: "No matter how thorough our observation of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities."
2. The power of light This fun fact: A 1-watt night-light emits a billion billion photons each second. Photons are the little packets that light comes in. Confusingly, they, like all particles, behave as both a particle and a wave.
3. Theory of everything If there is any "theory of everything" that can describe the whole universe, it is M theory, according to Hawking and Mlodinow. This model is a version of string theory, which posits that at the tiniest levels all particles are fundamentally little loops of string that vibrate at different frequencies. And, if true, all matter and energy would follow rules derived from the nature of these strings.
"M theory is the only model that has all the properties we think the final theory ought to have," the authors write.
One consequence of this theory is that our universe is not the only one – untold numbers of cousin universes exist with different physical laws and properties.
4. General relativity If most people think of general relativity at all, they assume this high-minded idea of Einstein's applies only to super-large objects completely outside the realm of normal life, such as galaxies and black holes.
But actually, the warping of space-time does affect things we know and use, the authors point out.
"If general relativity were not taken into account in GPS satellite navigation systems, errors in global positions would accumulate at a rate of about ten kilometers each day," the book states. That's because general relativity describes how time flows slower the closer an object is to a large mass. Thus, depending on satellites' distances from Earth, their onboard clocks will run at slightly different speeds, which could offset position calculations unless this effect is taken into account."
5. Oppressed fish A few years ago, the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved bowls. This law was meant to protect the poor fish from a distorted nature of reality, since bent light might show them an odd portrayal of their surroundings.
Hawking and Mlodinow bring up the incident to make the point that it is impossible to know the true nature of reality. We think we have an accurate picture of what's going on, but how would we know if we were metaphorically living in a giant fishbowl of our own, since we would never be able to see outside our own point of view to compare?
6. Pythagoras stole the credit In passing, the authors casually assert that the famous Greek mathematician Pythagoras did not actually discover the Pythagorean theorem.
A little digging suggests the formula (a2 + b2 = c2, which describes the relationship between the three sides of a right triangle) was actually known earlier. The Babylonians, for example, seem to have documented the basic idea in ancient mathematical tablets before Pythagoras came on the scene in 570 B.C.
7. Quarks are never lonely Quarks, the adorably named building blocks of protons and neutrons, come only in groups, never alone. Apparently, the force that binds quarks together increases with distance, so the farther one tries to pry a lone quark away, the harder it will pull back. Therefore, free quarks never exist in nature.
Protons and neutrons are both made of three quarks. (Protons contain two "up"-flavored quarks and one "down," while neutrons have two downs and one up.)
8. The universe is its own creator One of the most talked-about assertions in the whole book is that we don't need the idea of God to explain what sparked the creation of the universe.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going," Hawking and Mlodinow write.
Instead, the laws of science alone can explain why the universe began. Our modern understanding of time suggests that it is just another dimension, like space. Thus it doesn't have a beginning.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," they write. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist."
Yeah, our cats were screen climbers too. Mostly used the same window. Nothin’ there, then, ching! Cat’s hanging from the screen.
I sure hope not! I want to play Sigourney Weaver in 'Aliens' before I'm dead and cold, LOL!
Oh, that’s so cute!
Everything in the past was directly observed.
I believe you're speaking of, 'A Brief History of Time'. As to "no one reading it", I think you may be mistaken. It was on the NYT Best Seller list for four years.
And I read it. Found it fascinating and easy to read and understand. I got the book from my friend Joe, who was the least likely guy one would ever think who'd read about Blackholes and/or Physics (of any kind). As he was HS 'Sr' for 3 years.
he like HS so much he didn't want to leave :-)
"Paradox" is too kind a word for it:^)
Cordially,
I did a google search and snopes.com and nothing comes up about this except your post.
You are right that Hawking is not making scientific statements when he utters metaphysical statements about science.
However, it is not sufficient say that God is just as valid an explanation as science. God is necessarily the only explanation because without God explanation itself has no foundation whatever. Non-material laws of thought such as logic, reason and science are impossible in a strictly materialist universe.
So every time Hawking uses logic and reason he is, though he does not acknowledge it or admit it, tacitly assuming and thus evincing God's power and greatness. Hawking is blind to the fact that if he actually followed his presumptions consistently then he cannot justify or account for these very laws of thought he relies on and expects us to obey.
Cordially,
Somebody please help me out here. I'll just admit it up front that I am not a scientist and I have a couple of questions born of ignorance. Since time is relative, and flows slower the closer an object is to a large mass, then what does it mean to say, for example, that the universe is 14 billion years old? 14 billion years compared to what? Current time? Observer time? Obama time? What?
At the Big Bang all matter and energy were supposedly contained within an infinitesimal point. (Or at least I'm under the impression that's what it says.) Wouldn't the mass and relative size of the universe at the beginning and in subsequent stages have an effect on time? Can we know what the speed of time in those phases was, but again, though, compared to what?
Cordially,
From what I've read so for, I think the only thing I could understand in that book is maybe the cover and the dedication page.......
Is that something you really, really want to admit to?
Funny you talk about turnatable speed. I came up with a strange theory that the Atlanta Rhythm Section was really Fleetwood Mac when the 33 speed was upped to 45. Try it with Imaganary Lover!!!!
I am waiting for the point where Quantum Physics explains why socks get lost in the washer and/or dryer.
I don’t know anything about snopes.com, but this is something I heard with my own ears from one of the Washington pundits, on McLaughlin or some other show.
I agree with you. That said, one has to first accept that God is a valid explanation, as valid as science.
Hawking is blind to the fact that if he actually followed his presumptions consistently then he cannot justify or account for these very laws of thought he relies on and expects us to obey.
This is the beauty of discussing Hawking! It's perfectly obvious that if he were to treat each hypothesis equally and then let the chips fall, he would not be writing books say we don't need God to explain the universe.
Even if he just followed his own "observations" to their conclusions, they still end up being contradictory and internally inconsistent without God.
Hawking states that the force of gravity itself can create something out of nothing. If that is true, then the "law" of gravity is unpredictable and random, and therefore no "law" at all.
Moreover, if the law of gravity can create something out of nothing, and the law of gravity is operating at all times, then "reality" is never fixed. Gravity could create and insert, as it were, something out of nothing at any time, at any place.
Wow, this Hawking law of gravity thing is starting to sound a lot like an omnipotent spiritual power, but one that operates with something like intelligence, thus making our "reality," in gross terms, predictable and non-random.
Is that you in there, Diana?
Moreover, if the law of gravity can create something out of nothing, and the law of gravity is operating at all times, then "reality" is never fixed. Gravity could create and insert, as it were, something out of nothing at any time, at any place.
These are great points you make concerning the internal inconsistencies and self-vitiating futility inherent in Hawkings world view. Aside from the fact that he overlooks the obvious, (gravity is not 'nothing') if the "law" of gravity is unpredictable and random, and therefore no "law" at all, then on his atheist premise he has no logical right to affirm merely on the basis of past experiences that the future will be like the past or even that probability is true of the natural order. Without the principle of the uniformity of nature, the principle of induction and the ability to make predictions, there goes science itself out the window.
Hawking wants to have cake without the precondition necessary for cake.
Cordially,
This is why I love articles like this one; they frequently give you a new way to look at things. Thanks for the ping!
And I hope he keeps talking! Sometimes I wonder if the Lord isn’t going to crack his heart open right before he dies. But aside from that, the more Hawking talks about this, and the more people try to wrap their minds around it, the more people will at least be seeking answers to questions that just might lead them to the truth.
May it be!
Thanks for your enjoyable conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.