ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Deep questions answered

Posted: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:18 PM by Alan Boyle

What is the universe expanding into? How could we possibly make trips to other star systems? What happens when two black holes meet? Is a "theory of everything" within reach? Such are the questions that Cosmic Log readers posed for Stephen Hawking, arguably the world's most famous physicist as well as the world's most famous quadriplegic.

We've shipped off a selection of queries for Dr. Hawking to consider, but we can already address the questions we've just listed, as well as other questions relating to his favorite music - and even his favorite episode of "The Simpsons."

The questions we sent Hawking's way via e-mail focus mainly on the big mysteries: God, life, the universe and everything - plus space travel and weightlessness, of course. It'll take weeks for the good doctor to reply, and there's no ironclad guarantee he'll actually find the time to do it.

But in the meantime, Hawking's pronouncements continue to pop up in the news. Just today, for example, he caused a stir by observing that human activities are affecting Earth's climate in ways that "may forever change life on Earth." Some of the answers to frequently asked questions can be gleaned from Hawking's past statements, and others can be pieced together based on current cosmological theory.

In that vein, then, here are the likely answers to some of the deep (and not-so-deep) questions. If some of these answers aren't quite right, or up to the standards you'd expect from Stephen Hawking, that's my fault alone - and I'll look forward to your corrections and amplifications in the comments section:

N. Anthony: "Where does the universe end? Is it infinite? I've heard that the universe expands at the speed of light, but what is it expanding into?"

Here's what Hawking has to say on his Web site about the nature of our universe in four-dimensional space-time:

"... James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world, and I didn't fall off."

Like other cosmologists, Hawking would say the idea that the universe is expanding "into" something gives the false impression that we can perceive that "something." We often think of the expanding universe as the surface of an inflating balloon - but this analogy is imperfect, because we're trying to think of our three-dimensional space as a two-dimensional surface. Physicist Michio Kaku provided an explanation of all this a few years ago - an explanation that's actually a condensation of a longer answer he provided as part of the "Stephen Hawking's Universe" project at PBS.

Based on Hawking's no-boundary proposal, it wouldn't make sense to ask what came before the first instant of the universe's existence, or what will come after the last instant - just as it doesn't make sense, at least technically, to ask what on the earth's surface is north of the North Pole, or south of the South Pole. (Yes, I know there's "up" and "down," but I hope you see what I mean.)

Also, there would be no "edge" or "end" to the universe. If you extended a straight line in one direction, that line would theoretically come right back to the starting point. Of course, you'd never be able to check that out experimentally because the universe is so mindbogglingly big.

Gene Seawright: "If the universe is ever expanding, why will the galaxy Andromeda eventually collide with the Milky Way galaxy?"

On the largest scales, the expansion of the universe indeed is accelerating. But on smaller scales, galaxies are moving to and fro within local groups, influenced in part by gravitational interactions. The expected collision between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy - in about 3 billion years or so - is the result of such interactions.

Tim Nixon: "If the human race must move beyond Earth and colonize other planets in order to survive, how can we overcome the vast distances of space and the limitations of traveling at the speed of light?"

Hawking addressed this part of the question not all that long ago, in his interview with the BBC:

"Sooner or later, disasters such as an asteroid collision or nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe. There isn’t anywhere like the Earth in the solar system, so we would have to go to another star.

"If we used chemical fuel rockets like the Apollo mission to the moon, the journey to the nearest star would take 50,000 years. This is obviously far too long to be practical, so science fiction has developed the idea of warp drive, which takes you instantly to your destination. Unfortunately, this would violate the scientific law which says that nothing can travel faster than light.

"However, we can still within the law, by using matter/antimatter annihilation, at least reach just below the speed of light. With that, it would be possible to reach the next star in about six years."

Moreover, if we could travel that close to the speed of light, the trip would seem to take less time to the travelers onboard their matter/antimatter-powered craft, thanks to relativistic time dilation. This little applet demonstrates how the travel time would be shorter for the folks on board than for the folks watching from Earth, depending on how fast you travel.

Check out this archived article for more about antimatter drives and other exotic ideas for interstellar propulsion.

Steven Vanhee: "What happens if two black holes meet? Will the 'strongest' consume the other one, eventualy reducing the universe to one, triggering a second big bang?"

Physicists suspect that black holes do indeed collide with each other, setting off huge blasts in the process. But in Hawking's view, black holes don't last forever. In fact, one of Hawking's biggest contributions to physics is the view that black holes eventually fizzle out, due to a phenomenon known as "Hawking radiation." So the scenario of all the black holes being swept up into one big monster would be highly unlikely.

John B.: "Do you believe string theory is the Holy Grail of modern physics and if so how has it or will it impact our understanding of the universe both great and small?

In his BBC interview, Hawking stuck to his view that physicists could arrive at a "theory of everything" within 20 years - and that such a theory might allow scientists to "read the mind of God." However, in his book "A Briefer History of Time," Hawking speculates that there might not be one single theory to explain the whole universe. Instead, we might use a collection of theories to navigate the cosmos at different scales - just as we use maps at different scales to find our way around town or around the globe.

Brian: "What are your views about the current debate in the U.S. regarding fully funding stem-cell research, and what would you say to those who oppose such research that might lead to a cure for your condition?"

A few months ago, Hawking told The Independent that banning the use of human embryos for stem-cell research would be like banning the use of organs from accident victims:

"The fact that the cells may come from embryos is not an objection because the embryos are going to die anyway. It is morally equivalent to taking a heart transplant from a victim of a car accident."

Later, he told The Guardian, "We throw away many embryos in IVF [in-vitro fertilization] and no one objects. Isn't it better to use a few embryos to save lives?"

Of course, the debate over stem cells is more complicated than the organ transplant issue, in that an embryo can't give its consent for stem-cell extraction.

Thomas Ashby: "What is your favorite music? Who are your favorite musicians?"

Hawking's Web site provides the straight scoop: "I mainly listen to classical music: Wagner, Brahms, Mahler etc., but I like pop as well. What I want is music with character." Hawking said he went with his son to a Depeche Mode concert, "and my ears were ringing for the next 24 hours."

Robert LaNicca: "What is your favorite 'Simpsons' episode?"

One of his favorites - if not the favorite - would have to be "They Saved Lisa's Brain," the 1999 episode in which Hawking himself comes to Lisa's rescue. You'll find a screenshot from that episode posted on Hawking's Web site. Here's a snippet of dialogue from the episode:

Lisa: Oh, Dr. Hawking,  we had such a beautiful dream. What went wrong?
Hawking: Don't feel bad, Lisa.  Sometimes, the smartest of us can be the most childish.
Lisa: Even you?
Hawking: No. Not me. Never.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

How does time work at the edge of the universe, which is expanding at the speed of light? Also, what is on the "other side" of the edge of the universe?
Not really a comment but I've always wondered: If the farther we look into space, the farther back in time we are looking... then shouldn't we be able to see our own galaxy in the past?

Lastly.. Hawking... you're awesome.

Dear Dr. Hawking,
Regarding strings in tiny circles (string theory), tubular super strings that "sing gravity" as they loop and decay, and the possible multiple-dimensionality of gravity: Is it possible that "strings" are sections of "tube-strings" that interconnect the multiple dimensions of the cosmos?

I'm thrilled to be able to ask this!  I've been wondering how to ask someone who could give a probable answer, and many times thrilled that it could be you.

Sincerely,
Karen Loos

If you knew the science, how would you apply it for the aid of mankind?
I believe that M-Theory is doing much to explain a good portion of questions such as these.  Mathematically, M-Theory has discovered that 10 or possibly 11 dimensions exist in our universe and that we simply are able to detect four of those.  It goes far at accounting for the missing 95% of the "missing" - or almost undetectable - matter/energy in the universe (70% Dark Energy and 25% Dark Matter) which is likely the key to solving the "Theory of Everything," or GUT (Grand Unification Theory) if one exists.

The first experimental evidence supporting or refuting M-Theory involves the nature of the graviton particle and will be tested in the new particle accelerator this year in Europe.  It is a fascinating subject which elevates the mind and enthralls the soul of curious people everywhere.
Dr. Hawking:

Given that energy can be transmitted through gravitational fields from one body to another as is shown in the following examples, why can’t some of the red shift in light coming from distant galaxies be accounted for by losses of energy through the gravitational fields in space to various stars and galaxies through which these photons travel during the billions of years these photons of have been traveling?

Example 1.
Photons of light exhibit a measurable red shift when traveling up from a deep mine shaft as the photons lose energy to the gravitational field of the earth.

Example 2.
Photons of light can lose all their energy to the gravitational field of a black hole.

Example 3.
Our moon gains energy and thus increases the diameter of its orbit while at the same time exerting a drag on our earth and slowing down it’s rotation thus increasing the length of our day.

Sincerely,
Frank Way
Why is the in vacuo velocity of light finite, and why the particular value of about 3x10^8 m/s? What constrains light to this velocity?
Unfortunately, I've already sent off the definitive batch of questions for Dr. Hawking, so I'm afraid we're on our own from here on out.

Jose: As mentioned above, Hawking is not of the view that the universe has an "edge," and thus we could not directly perceive what's on the "other side." Time would work the same for every moment of the universe's existence. I forgot to mention that Hawking uses the concept of "imaginary time" to get around the idea of a big bang singularity. Here's a link to Wikipedia's explanation of imaginary time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

Brent: As we look farther back, we see things as they were farther back in time, until we reach the big bang's afterglow and the "dark ages" of the early universe. We wouldn't see our own galaxy, just because our observations of space and time are bound up the way they are.

Karen: There is indeed talk that the "strings" involved in string theory are actually multidimensional membranes, or "branes." This is what "M-Theory" is all about. I hope this item is helpful: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9315135/

And Zuuumie: Dr. Hawking has been speaking out on issues such as global warming, informed by his understanding of the science. So he's using his celebrity and scientific acumen to draw attention to global issues that need addressing.
Considering the time spans that you deal with on the cosmic scale, do you ever ponder the timing of your life that alowed you to be born at just the exact instance when technowledge existed that would enable you to continue your work inspite of being handy capped? No disrespect intended. Just a thought that GOD must have been very determined that you be alowed to make your contribution.
Alan, to add to your answer to Jose: No matter how fast and how far along a "straight line" into the universe one would travel obeying the laws of physics, one would always find self, according to one's perception, at the very center of it and it would be still expanding at the same rate in all directions.  There is no edge visible or accessible from within the universe, as in the surface of the globe analogy.  But just as the surface, which is without edges while one is on it, if a hypothetical observer (itself not a part of the universe) existing in more dimensions looked at the universe, it would see an "edge" just as we can observe the limits of a globe looking at it from above.
You know, despite what MSNBC news anchors always say about you Alan... You're not such a bad guy... Ha-ha!  I was blown away by many of the questions.  Talk about brainstorming!

I was also very happy to see Steven at the advancing of the "doomsday clock" today.  His presence there brings a lot of weight as do his past statements.  It just seems that a confrontation with Iran is becoming inevitable rahter than just being something to worry about.  Will there be a "this time" next year?
Are you happy?
is it possible for there to be more than 1 universe occupying the same space ?? could God be in the different one ??
Gamma radiation kills human brain cells and until just recently doctors thought that brain cells do not regenerate, but have found that they do regenerate but at a much slower rate than other human cells. Knowing that nothing can stop gamma waves, though lead shielding can slow it, How can our space exployers survive long voyages to Mars or man stations on the Moon for long periods of time? Thank you in advance of your answer. You are a great American.
Do you really believe the speed of light cannot be breached, or is mankind just setting limits again, it is a bad habit we have,sailing off the end of the earth,not flying,not breaking the sound barrier,ect
Who is going to get more wet? Person A, running from poin to point A to point B, or person B walking the same path from point A to point B?
I am of the belief that the existence of entropy in this universe negates the existence of a Supreme Being or indefinite consciousness (one’s soul after death).  Both human beliefs would require ordered consciousness to increase, or at the very least, stay the same in the universe as new biological life forms are born and then die.  Furthermore, a universal consciousness, or so-called Supreme Being, could never lose order.  
Entropy, on the other hand, guarantees the eventual and complete deconstruction of all forms of ordered existence.  It this is true, its very definition cancels out the possibility that there is life, or any other form of self-awareness, after death.  It boils down to the simple deductive argument: If this is true, than that cannot be.  Is this a valid argument?

Sincerely,
David Benson  
The universe is so grand, so old and the number of worlds so large that it seems infinitely improbable that, assuming there is other life elsewhere, that a human being could find it or travel to it. Unless humans evolve enough physically and mentally in the next million years. And what is with the size of the universe? Why are we so small and the universe so big?
Lets say we can develop a spacecraft that achieves the speed of light.  Couldn't someone onboard this craft travel from the rear of the craft to the front, in effect, traveling faster than the speed of light?  I'm thinking along the lines of how someone in a aircraft can do this, in effect, walking faster than the plane is traveling.  Just wondering if this could happen, and if not, why.  Thanks.
In my own little (undereducated) head, I have a theory that black holes are actually like the end of straw stuck deep into the milkshake that is our universe.  The matter of our galaxies is drawn in and used for another purpose in some unknowable dimension.  We are, therefore, simply bacteria on a bit of cosmic strawberry waiting to be sucked up at some point in the future.  It just seems so simple. and answers (in my head at least) so many questions.  The problem is, it is not an answer anyone is hoping for and is therefore dismissed out of hand (usually with a self important chuckle).  Am I completely nuts?
I am interested in seeing what Mr. Hawkings says about intelligent design (God). My personal belief has always been that we are here for a purpose and that whoever designed us did so within the bounds of science and mathematics as we know them now. As our understanding of our time encapsulated existence grows, as we discover new dimensions and our ability to move in those dimensions, will we finally be able to put a definition on the term "eternity"?
I read a theory about the inflationary period right after the big bang where space expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light. The person explaining this theory posed that no laws of physics were being violated, because space itself was expanding, and the matter within it was still traveling at sub-light speeds. My question is this - if an object is moving away from you, how can you tell whether its because the space between you is expanding or if the object is traveling at a velocity away from you? From an observers standpoint is there any real difference?
the speed of light is constant. But! relative to what???
I can answer this question. "If the farther we look into space, the farther back in time we are looking... then shouldn't we be able to see our own galaxy in the past?" If light is arriving to our vantage point from 1000 light years away then we are effectively seeing the source as it was 1000 years ago. Since we are in the Milky Way ourselves most of the light is traveling away from Earth, the oldest light we could receive is light from the furthest edge traveling towards the Earth. Whatever that is in light years is how old the light would be. So, if you wanted to see the Milky Way 1000 years ago you would have to travel 1000 light years away from it and since you can't travel faster than light.... Well, you get the idea.
I consider myself to be pretty smart, in certain ways, but I can't claim to truly understand the things Mr. Hawking theorizes or explains.  I cannot dispute his obvious intelligence, and I certainly cannot say he is right or wrong about anything, but I find myself having problems with a lot of things that some scientists present as absolute.  I value science, and certainly appreciate what it has done to make life what it is and what it will be, but all science is not necessarily true or right.  Just like the Bible, the word of science is written by man.  We are fallible, quite prone to arrogance, and typically more than happy to jump to a conclusion and call it law or absolute.

Something as popular as traveling at or near the speed of light, for example.  People claim it simply cannot be done, the laws of physics say so, the laws of this or that theory make it impossible.  These are the laws written by the same race who cannot predict earthquakes, tornadoes, or even make up their minds about what is or isn't a planet.  Every law of physics we put in place is only good until the next genius relizes that the previous ones were slightly off on this detail or that.  Until we learn enough to realize that our few thousand years of scientific learning is nothing compared to billions of years of existence, we are going to have people today say that doing this tomorrow is just impossible.

The earth used to be flat, there was no doubt about it, the grand horizon had a final place from which none could possibly return.  The scientists then simply could not see beyond what they did not understand.  Greater than light speed travel, the ends of the universe, alternate dimensions, God, and a great many things about our own planet are just simply beyond our ability to understand at this time.  They are not impossible, they are just inconceivable right now.

CLARIFICATION? 
 Here's a quote from Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos", beginnintg of Chapter 3. "Some discoveries provide answers to questions. Other discoveries are so deep that they cast questions in a whole new light, showing that previous mysteries were misperceived through lack of knowledge. You could spend a lifetime--in antiquity, some did-- wondering what hppens when you reach earth's edge, or trying to figure out who or what lives on the earth's underbelly. But when you learn that the earth is round, you see that the previous mysteries are not solved, they're rendered irrelevant." From my earlier comment on what does space exand into, such questions may be seen as seeking a black cat in a dark cellar when the cat isn't even there.

Continuing in Greene, "During the first decades of the twentieth century Albert Einstein made two deep discoveries. Each caused a radical upheaval in our understanding of space and time. Einstein dismantled the rigid, absolute structures that Newton had erected, and built his own tower, synthesizing space and time in a manner that was completely unanticipated. When he was done, time had become so connected with space that the reality of one could no longer be pondered separately from the other." 

 For those seeking absolutes in our universe and to discredit the idea that Einstein's Special Relativity  show "everything is relative", here's an excerpt from Greene, "Space and time are individually relative, spacetime is an absolute entity." (Special Relativity) 

 Greene's book is an easy read for the most part; so, it can be recommended to all, at least in the early pages. to find answers to many questions proposed to Dr. Hawking.

For Wayne McCoy 
  Dr. Hawking nor anyone else can answer your questions scientifically at the current stage of our scientific knowledge. Even if our knowledge leads to explaning theories, "Why" questions can never be answered ultimately because one can always ask "why" to any answer, One might answer your "why" questions by saying in order for humans to exist, then comes "why should humans exist". Religious (those who believe in or know God) people can't get off the "why" hook by saying because God made it that way because one can then ask why did God make it that way. All this should remind you of my point, in the faith and science comments, about nothing can be defined ultimately; one can always ask, if you, for example, define length as distance, what is distance. Parents in despair from their child's "why" questions may declare "because I say so". 

 Strictly, science is about answering "how" questions, not "why" questions; however, scientists find "why" questions inspirational and maybe exciting. "Why" questions fit more readily into religion or philosophy.

"the speed of light is constant. But! relative to what???"
Bill wilson, the answer to your question is: "The speed of dark."

Okay, it's an old Steve Wright joke.

There's hope for humanity as long as we continue to have rockstars of science come along like Einstein, Sagan, Leakey, Gould...Hawking to inspire us in turn to play at king of the hill on their shoulders.

Dr. Hawkings. I came across "Deep Questions Answered" by accident. as I was reading some of the questions people were asking I became acutely aware how ignorant I am of this science "of the universe. "being human" I do wonder about many things. would you have time to explain to someone who has never even studied algebra , what the "statement made about there being 10 to 11 other deminsions existing" does that mean different lifeforms in a different reality ? sorry if this sounds ignorant, Im sure you know what it is I am asking. thankyou, if you have time for a question like mine.
Wow....cool stuff. Thanks Alan & Stephen!
It is MY belief that the only thing that can not be limited or ruled is our ability to imagine. In that respect anything is possible. Even if someone says it isn't. Sometimes I feel we all over-complicate things.
Are there gravity mirrors just as there are gravity lens? The Hubble telescope was used to peer through a gravity lens as a means of looking back in time at galaxies. Is it possible that strong gravitational fields or extreme warping of space could bounce light back to the observer? Could we look at our galaxy or solar system as it existed thousands or even millions of years ago?
There seems to be some misunderstanding about the velocity limit imposed on moving massive bodies. This is not a man-made limit but one that the universe itself has imposed. The Theory of Relativity just recognizes that the limit seems to exist. The problem posed by the Special Theory of Relativity -- and pretty well borne out by experiments -- is that it requires increasing amounts of energy to continue to accelerate a moving body to higher and higher velocities. As the velocity of the body approaches that of light, the amount of energy to further close the gap increases to infinity. This is not to say that we might not ever find a way around it: it's that the physics that we know and that has been verified by experiment indicates that we won't do it any time soon. We don't know where to get infinite energy. The idea of tachyons -- particles that always move faster than light -- exist is theoretical. One difficulty would be in detecting them. Physicists use the term "tachyon" to refer to concepts or constructs in theory that lead to absurd results, such as infinite energy.
I have heard it said that matter falling into a black hole "disappears" from our universe. Does that mean that it no longer exists in our universe, or just that we can't see it? If it no longer exists in our universe, we should no longer feel the effects of its gravity. It has not "disappeared" any more than a person who goes into a closet and closes the door "disappears" because we can no longer see them. Black holes are also sometimes suspected of being gateways to other locations in our universe, or to other universes. But the gravity of a black hole seems to be directly related to the amount of matter that originally formed it, or has fallen into it since. Doesn't that also imply that all the matter that is in the black hole is just matter from our universe that we can't see anymore?
Dr. Hawking... if life is a form of energy, wouldn't all scientists have to consider the possibility of an eternal life, if that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but only change form? Aren't all scientists limited to simply discovering through the application of the scientific method the laws of the Universe and then further limited to combining or assembling only what is available in the Universe that can be successfully combined in accordance with the laws? Wouldn't the only scientist who can "play God" be the one who figures out how to create a Universe out of nothing? Finally, if someone says they believe God created everything... wouldn't this entity be responsible for the creation of the Universe and all laws of physics, biology, etc. that scientists make observations of and test until they eventually accept the observation as a possible reality? Why is there a battle between science and faith?
Dr. Hawking.
Since no one has asked yet, and I'm sure EVERYone wants to know, I'll ask the big question: What is Homer Simpson REALLY like?
Does Mr. Hawking believe in God and if so is it based purely on faith or does he have possible scientific evidence or a grand being?
Question:
the speed of light is constant. But! relative to what???

Answer:
Relative to wherever you are measuring it from.

Example:
A 100ft long translucent rocket ship is flying by the Earth near the speed of light.  An alien in the back of the ship turns on a flash light and measures the time it takes for the light to hit the far wall 100 feet away.  Based on his calculations, the beam of light was travelling at about 1 billion feet per second.  

At the same time, a human on Earth measures this same beam of light.  During the time it took the beam of light to travel from the back of the ship to the front of the ship, the ship moved 90 feet.  So from the point of view of the human, the light has travelled 190 feet.  The funny thing is, the human  also calculates the speed of the light as about 1 billion feet per second.

So how could the speed of the light beam be the same for both the alien and the human when the alien is using a distance of 100 feet, but the human is using a distance of 190 feet?

Our course the answer is time.  

Speed = Distance / Time, or
Time = Distance / Speed

For the alien, Time = 100 feet / 1,000,000,000 feet per second = 0.0000001 seconds.

For the human, Time = 190 feet / 1,000,000,000 feet per second = 0.00000019 seconds.

But how could the time duration of the same event be different just because you change your point of view.  This is why the theory of relativity is so difficult to grasp, it's so counter-intuitive to our daily existence.
regarding the universe expanding answer: in other words, it would've been easier for you to have said "I don't know", or "your guess is as good as mine"...
I am naive to the "Doomsday Clock" and MSNBC ran this twice on their website, one week prior to your group announcing that you had an importantand critical announcement, then yesterday the hands of the clock moved forward 2 minutes which now is set to five minutes to midnight. Do you think this will happen in our lifetime, is this what your group has determined and the reason no one is talking about this even further I would assume is because of the panic it would create?
@Carleton Lane

My question of "why" on the velocity of light was not a philosophical question, but whether or not there is anything in current theory that might explain why there is an impedance to photons traversing the vacuum. Might it be due to fields (e.g., Higgs) interacting with the photons, or the structure of spacetime itself (e.g., Wheeler's foam)? It was an entirely scientific question.
There is one question I have never heard asked concerning time and space. As a fifty-something person who swears as all "older" people do that time sure seems to be speeding up the older we get, I wonder if time could actually be speeding up. Granted that time is a human concept, a minute of time years ago is the same measure we use today. And I have never heard a child utter that "it seems like time is passing quicker today than before," since children don't have a long enough time of existence to be able to notice the change. Also, as Mr. Hawking believes, the universe is actually expanding quicker today than earlier. Given the above facts, I propose the idea that time is indeed speeding up. Does this seem possible? I hope someone smarter than me says it just seems that way because we are all facing our own demise quicker than we would like, but how come EVERYONE feels this same way? It is my wish that this idea might get someoene thinking further on the relationship between time and space. I submit my humble idea for your consideration.
Is it possible that solar systems are in fact giant atoms making up some greater bit of matter residing in the next layer of existence (dimension?) while the atoms that make up all matter in our level of existence are host to yet another level of existence, and so on and so on? If so then would it be conceivable that light emitted from the nucleus/stars in the various levels would travel at different speeds? Could the key to time travel be in linking up with the light speed in alternate dimensions?
Dear Mr Hawking
What do you see as the next big discovery in physics other than the usual subjects ie theory of everything.Thank you
Do you think in the not to distant future it will be possible to link the human brain to a computer and download all the knowledge in it? This could be put into a robot and used to send the human species on voyages to the farthest reaches of space. A robotic crew could then use genetic material to bring us back to life.
Dr Hawking,

Why do a bunch of people who seem to have (or at least pretend to have) a vast knowledge of science not realize that these posted comments are not intended to reach you?

Mr. Boyle,

Even after your earlier clarification on this, people continue to post questions "to" Stephen Hawking.

Perhaps you overestimate the intelligence of your readers.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Hawking, and his less heralded contemporaries, whether or not I believe all (or any) of what they have to say.
Hi, Chris: I think it's because folks just naturally love the idea of being able to have a brush with greatness ... so much so that they may not read the fine print. That's what motivated me to try to answer some of the extra questions posed to Dr. Hawking ... and I'm hoping other folks will take it upon themselves to answer some questions (as long as the answer makes sense, of course). And who knows, maybe the good doctor will look in on these entries as well. We can always dream, right?
  Great site,I will visit often. 

My question:since there are countless numbers of stars and galaxies,could there also be countless numbers of these things we call The Universe,each one separated  from the other by distances so vast that they will remain forever undetected?
dear stephen,  will the discovery of the god particle (matter), annihilate the atheist particle (antimatter) ?

hope you get that antigrav airplane ride !!!!!
When I was a teen, I watched a short cartoon that affected my outlook on time and space. it started as a local political rally in a small town square. The speaker was speaking a non-language type giberish, posibly to make the inpact universal. The speaker was shouting and a butterfly flew around his head and he angerely swung at it constantly. The observing "camera" backed away and the picture observed was looking down at the town square from a distance with the town in the forground. It kept receding, first to see the town among other towns, then the state among other states, it backed off to show the earth, and then the earth among the local planets. Furthur and further it went with the colors swirling and changing in hypnotic ways, untill it backed up one more final time and "everything" was on the wing of a buterfly that then just flew away. It may not explain anything, but it is an interesting explaination of the Universe. What do you think?
Wonderful discussion! Any way to morph this into a forum??


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=33567

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google