Up close with Dr. Hawking

Posted: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:34 PM by Alan Boyle

World-famous cosmologist Stephen Hawking was in the Seattle spotlight Monday night to explain the big questions: Why does time seem to move always forward but never backward? Why does he think running time backwards the only way to solve the universe's biggest mystery? But the small questions can be just as intriguing: For example, how does Hawking “autograph” a book? When he composes a sentence on his gesture-controlled computer, does he blink or does he sneer?

Here are some insights into those questions, great and small, gleaned during a close encounter with Cambridge University's frail genius:

Kimberly Wright / Reuters file

Physicist Stephen Hawking uses an infrared sensor
mounted on his eyeglasses as part of a
computerized writing/speaking system.

The title of Hawking's advertised talk was "The History of the Universe Backwards," but he actually delivered two lectures - one looking back at his own career in physics, and another focusing on his latest theories about a "top-down" approach to cosmology.

The first talk touched on the milestones of his career: how he went into cosmology rather than particle physics, the subdiscipline du jour, because he marched to the beat of a different scientific drummer ... how he was diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease, known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS, while he was in graduate school ... and how, despite his increasing disability, he went on to plumb the theoretical depths of black holes and the big bang.

Hawking has gone back and forth about what happens to the things that are sucked into a black hole. At one time, he held that the "information" falling into the black hole is lost forever, but recently he has said that the contents of a black hole would leak out in the form of "Hawking radiation," until the black hole itself dissipates.

"Information is not lost, but it is not returned in a useful way," he said. "It is like burning an encyclopedia. Information is not lost, but it is very hard to read."

Speaking of encyclopedias, Hawking noted that his reversal caused him to lose a bet to a fellow physicist, with the payoff coming in the form of a baseball encyclopedia. "Maybe I should have just given him the ashes," Hawking joked.

It was the second talk that really spurred my interest. Hawking and a colleague from CERN, Thomas Hertog, recently declared that the best way to understand how the universe arose was to look at our current cosmic conditions, then work back through "the sum of all histories" to figure out which theory would produce those conditions.

Hawking calls it a "top-down" approach to what he has long considered the biggest cosmic question: What was the initial state of the universe? Did God just create the universe the way it was, and that's it? Or is there a scientific reason for why the cosmos is just so ... why, for instance, it could lead to the conditions for intelligent beings like us?

Hawking's top-down vs. bottom-up approach goes to the heart of the issue covered in his best-known bestseller: "A Brief History of Time." During his Seattle talk, Hawking contended that cosmologists essentially had to look at time in reverse.

If time is a definite dimension like up-down, left-right and forward-back, why does time only move forward? Hawking said the answer to that question might lie in the Second Law of Thermodynamics - the idea that an enclosed system must move from a more ordered to a less ordered state:

"We don't really know how the human brain works. I find women's brains a particular mystery. But it is reasonable to assume that humans remember the same direction of time as computers do. ... We understand how computers work, unlike humans. And one can show that when a computer records an item in its memory, the total amount of disorder goes up. So computers and humans remember the past, and not the future. That is, because of the Second Law, we usually recount history forward.

"We say that later events are caused by earlier events, but not that earlier events happen in order to lead to the later. This 'bottom-up' approach, as I call it, works well in situations in which we can choose the initial state and observe the outcome. But the bottom-up approach does not work in cosmology.

"We do not know what the initial state of the universe was, and we currently can't try out different initial states and see what kinds of universes they would produce."

General relativity alone can't solve the problem, so quantum mechanics has to come into play to figure out what's the likeliest backward history for our universe, Hawking said.

As we've mentioned before, the twists in mathematics that link up general relativity and quantum mechanics seem to imply that we live in an 10- or 11-dimensional universe, perhaps with up to seven dimensions somehow rolled up into immeasurably small loops. The math also implies that there is a virtually immeasurable number of ways that our universe could have developed - nearly driving theoreticians to despair.

Hawking, however, isn't the despairing type: He said physicists should focus just on the scenarios that have three large spatial dimensions, like ours. It may sound like the anthropic principle - that is, the view that the universe is the way it is simply because there would be no intelligent life around to observe it if things were much different. But Hawking preferred to use another term - "the selection principle" - because the selection "doesn't depend on intelligent life."

That's not to say the loop dimensions don't count. Hawking said those other dimensions, which he called "internal space," may well determine the fundamental characteristics of our cosmos, such as the charge of an electron or the nature of subatomic interactions.

So how can physicists work their way backwards and map out that internal space? Strangely enough, Hawking endorsed the same approach favored by Columbia physicist Brian Greene, an earlier speaker in the Seattle lecture series: looking closely at irregularities in the "fingerprint" of the early universe, as seen in the background radiation left behind by the big bang. Those irregularities, which could soon be mapped in greater precision by probes such as the Planck spacecraft, may reveal the imprint of our own internal space.

Hawking said that the universe may represent just one "bubble" in a cosmic froth - perhaps longer-lasting than some other blips. Rather than dwelling so much on how many other unseeable bubbles there could be, Hawking advised concentrating on what makes our bubble the way it is.

"There seems to be a vast landscape of possible 'internal spaces,'" he said, setting up for a final joke. "We live in the anthropically allowed region, in which life is possible. But I think we might have chosen a better location."

I met Hawking at a reception after the talk, and here are some impressions on those smaller questions at the beginning:

If you want to get on Hawking's good side, stand to his right. That's the natural direction of his gaze when he's fixed in his wheelchair, and the tiny infrared sensor that he uses for his computerized communication system is mounted on the right temple of his eyeglass frames. For the record, he wore an open-neck, striped dress shirt, brown suit jacket and slacks, and brown suede shoes for Monday's talk. His hands were composed in his lap, and he was attended by two British assistants.
The system Hawking uses to compose the phrases for his mechanical voice is often called a "blink-controlled" computer, but I'd call it more of a twitch or a sneer. Not that there's anything wrong with that. He raises his upper lip over his teeth for an instant, and the cursor on his wheelchair-mounted computer screen jumps. First, Hawking highlights a block of words, then a row, then the desired word or letter sequence to add to his sentence. Each twitch of the lip and cheek is acknowledged by a beep of the computer.
Long lectures are pre-written, of course, but Hawking controls the delivery of the talk phrase by phrase - pausing for emphasis, applause or laughter.
If you ask a question, the response can take a while. Sometimes a short "Yes" will do the trick, but other times you just have to be patient. He has to build up his reply, word by word, then activate his computerized voice to deliver the answer. When one questioner asked Hawking to expound on the possibility that time may be curved in more than one dimension, Hawking took about five minutes to craft two short sentences: "General relativity allows [time] to loop back on itself. However, quantum theory seems to prevent travel into the past."
Instead of autographing books, Hawking thumbprints them, with the aid of an assistant and an ink pad. A thumbprint also serves as his signature for letters.
Even though Hawking is almost completely paralyzed, there is lots of expressiveness in his eyes and mouth. X Prize founder Peter Diamandis remarked last week about Hawking's smile - and he's right, it's wonderful. He even has a goofy, paternal grin that showed up during Monday's reception when his toddling grandson scampered around his wheelchair. (Yes, Hawking is a proud grandpa, and he's been visiting family during his U.S. tour).
If you want to see him smile, just mention his upcoming zero-gravity flight, which serves as a practice run for the outer-space trip Hawking is hoping to take someday aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. During the warmup to Monday's talk, video from SpaceShipOne's prize-winning flight was shown on the auditorium's big screen - and SpaceShipOne was shown as one of the historical milestones during the talk itself. Is Hawking looking forward to going into weightlessness? One of those smiles was the only answer I needed.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Folks, some of the messages are starting to get off track to talk about evolution vs. creationism, and also getting into a back-and-forth with other posters. I didn't mean for this thread to get off on the religion vs. atheism tangent (I had hoped we exhausted that with the Eastertide post), so I may be a little bit more selective about approving messages. My apologies in advance.

As to the "before creation" comment ... that was very thought-provoking, and made me rethink the way that our own universe may fit with the wider "bulk" (as cosmologists call it). I do think of bubble universes existing alongside each other, but of course we're not talking about three-dimensional bubbles in 3-D space. I can't visualize what a 10-dimensional space would look like, so I fall back on the bubble idea. Similarly, I can't visualize how things look beyond our space and time continuum, so I'm thinking of time as the latitudinal dimension on a globe. Thus, the "beginning" and the "end" of the universe are visualized as the north and south poles ... and talking about what's beyond the universe's time dimension is like an ant trying to visualize the moon. Pretty hard to do.

So when I talk about a perspective that's "before" creation, in the context of Hawking's no-boundary theory, I'm talking in purely a metaphorical sense. Hope you were able to stick with me there.

Alan Boyle (Sent Friday, April 13, 2007 4:07 PM)

To those who believe science has something to say about 'god', let me set the record straight - it doesn't.

Science is only a method of investigation. One develops a scientific theory, do experiments to prove or disprove it. The result is a conclusion, which may have some caveats. A successful scientific theory must be able to make prediction(s) that are not known before, and which can be confirmed. Future developments may well refute or refine that conclusion. Therefore, science can only investigate things that can continue to exist, or events that can be repeated. Science cannot investigate once-only event or thing (not directly) nor say anything about how they came about.

Science has never made any claims about the origin of Earth life because no one has been able to create it. The theory of evolution (by natural selection) is a extremely well confirmed description of how life developed and evolved, but not how it began.

Similarly, scientists have developed the Big Bang Inflation theory of the cosmos. It is backed by strong evidence, but it again is a description of how the universe developed, NOT how it was created. It never claimed any knowledge of how the Bang happened, the situation 'before' the Bang, because one cannot do an experiment to repeat it, at least with our present knowledge. The day may very well come when one can create a 'Bang' in the lab resulting in a tiny 'universe' that evolves in exactly the way our universe did. When that happened, science WILL have something to say about 'God'.

Man has invented hundreds, if not thousands of gods to signify the unknown. Man has been surrounded, controlled, and scared of the unknown since we dwell in the caves. Indeed, up until the 17th century, humans [who] have looked around can still cannot say they understand anything. Things simply work in ways mysterious, contrary to common sense. Things are just so complicated.

It is natural to worship these unknowns because they seem so powerful. Worshiping brings a sense of security, comfort. Egyptians worship the sun and wish to go to the stars after death by constructing the pyramids (at least sun and stars are real). Americans Indians worship lightnings, the single most destructive thing they know. Chinese worship the spirits of their ancestors. The ancient Greeks worship just about everything they don't understand. The Romans worship their emperors (make sense). Then we have Christians worshiping an unseen almighty claimed to exist by guy called Jesus who spent his life fighting the Roman Empire. What better way to fight the Roman god by suggesting you are its replacement.

Gods are fine because they're part of the human experience. But no gods have managed to explain or predict the natural world. That's why humans developed science to do the job.

To (Sent Friday, April 13, 2007 5:47 PM)

Alan, I hope you will see fit to include this comment for the benefit of those who may need it in view of some gross errors made by a recent contributor, "Spooky action at a distance". I will not use space to point out all the specific ERRORS of "Spooky action at a distance", but I do think that your readers should know that "Spooky" has many errors, scientific and philosophical, which may not be obvious to some of your readers, and some of your readers should be warned lest they be misled by them. While some rectitude exists in Spooky's stuff, the errors are so bad that they spoil hints of truth therein. Just one glaring example of an error that should be exposed: at relativistic speeds lengths contract (get shorter); they do NOT expand as Spooky claims. If the contraction were not so then atomic energy (explosions) would not be possible in our universe (if length contraction is wrong ala Spooky, then so is E=mcsquared; the two are inextricable). Spooky is allowed to doubt that relativity theory is the only correct explanation for our universe, even to doubt that nuclear bombs go off, but your readers should know the risks they take in adopting or accepting Spooky's arguments or doubts in view of colossal scientific evidence to the contrary.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, April 13, 2007 8:26 PM)

Alan...when the term "creation" is used as opposed to say "big bang" or "came into existence", how can one not be faced with the God question? Also, us common folk are stuck with our 4 dimensions since that's all we experience. Anything outside that is pure math/theoretical physics.

I'd like to get a sense about how time operates at the quantum level. I really don't think our view of time up here is the same as down there.

Thomas Ashby, Calgary (Sent Friday, April 13, 2007 8:32 PM)

So what expanded and divided the first original wisp of 3-d space? Doesn't it take yet another fourth physical dimension to divide it into more and more three dimensional objects where all subsequent objects have sides of equal length and all angles are right angles just like the first (the very definition of a fourth dimension)? And then how do those objects become dynamic enough to exhibit magnetic or other forces if they aren't made more dynamic by still more dimensions that allow them to flow past and through one another like another higher dimension would? We may retain the "physicality" of 3-d beings but we are built of, stretched from, and inflated around other numerous dimensions, not just three... the effect of other dimensions may be as different to us as time is to a 3-d office desk. Don't expect them to be seen, but felt - SURELY!

Chris E (Sent Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:29 AM)

Just some regurgitation of matters which long ago disappeared into the black hole of my gray matter:

There is no space in which there is no matter, and there is no matter in which there is no space;

Intelligence cannot be made or created, it has always existed;

The inherent intelligence of any finite thing dictates how it interacts and responds to the intelligence of any other finite thing within its universe (I know that it is programmable, though only theoretically because of the finite nature of human intelligence;

Matter is infinitely finite;

Relativity is itself time, and is exponentially manifested;

Perhaps the mathematical difficulty which Dr. Hawking and others have is finding the inverse of the time exponent is in finding the current exponent itself. I believe it is infinity.

Ken Rothey, Wuhan China (Sent Monday, April 16, 2007 7:56 AM)

I haven't read all of the responses or comments made above, so this may have been addressed, but would appreciate an answer to these questions. If the universes are like bubbles and are expanding out, what would prevent them bursting like an over inflated baloon? Would the force of magnetism or gravity get ever weaker and allow the universe to end? How long would that take?

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin (Sent Monday, April 16, 2007 11:50 AM)

Delmar Fairchild, Your question is very similar to a great question a reader asked back in January that went something like "Will the expansion of the universe ever reach a breaking point?" which I loved. Maybe there is something to that. Many people think that the only way for the universe to start over is for gravity to pull everything back together. But what if a “continued expansion” reaches a breaking point or a tear in the fabric of space. In both cases, we'd be back to nothing.

If the original one-dimensional essence still exists at the heart of all space-time (as opposed to being just some ‘past event’ before the big bang), perhaps then the universe is more of a constant oscillation of something within the fabric of space itself. In other words, imagine the universe like a cylinder with that original 1D essence bobbing up and down. The size and nature of the cylinder (or universe) does not change, but as the essence reaches it’s maximum up and down motions, the stretch in the fabric pulls “it back” (not us back) creating the opposite effect at the other end of the cylinder sleeve. Anti matter may be in recession while normal matter is ascending. This may be reversed over and over but is played out in the same arena like a very long corridor.

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Monday, April 16, 2007 1:16 PM)

Actually Alan and Delmar, the fluctuation of a one-dimensional essence to and from an anti-matter universe and our own could give the impression of the expansion of space (red-shift and all) without any actual expansion. Think of it like a sliding-type dimmer light switch. As the center of the lever oscillates, the light intensity (corresponding to the wave in the fabric of space that produces either matter or anti-matter) elevates and lowers. One day ordinary matter might just flicker out as anti-matter fills the void. Maybe this is a question for Carlton about any inverse relationship between matter and anti-matter.

Chris Eldridge (Sent Monday, April 16, 2007 1:40 PM)

Thank you for the reply. Although it didn't answer my questions, I do appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

We have measured the length of time our universe has been in existence. Could there not be a method to measure when we reach the point of not having any gravitational or magnetic pull left to keep the universe intact?

If dark matter or anti matter is really there and has a gravitational or magnetic pull and is displacing "our" preception of matter, shouldn't we be able to measure that attraction? Would a negative or lessening of our magnetic or gravitational pull be a positive attraction for Dark matter or anti matter? If all that is left is dark matter or anti matter, would this attraction be enough to send everything in the universe rushing back to the center (like a black hole) and create another big bang? And would this deacceleration or negative acceleration actually mean we reverse time back to the start? Then the "arrow" points both ways. If everything came back to the start on the same line that it went out, then we would be reversing time. Would that be true?

On the other hand, if there are no gravitational or magnetic pulls of dark matter or anti matter to bring everything back to the point of start, and if there is only one universe, wouldn't the universe just continue expanding to infinity of time and nothing would be able to exist due to the lack of gravitational or magnetic pull? Even the atoms and their subparts would fall apart because they all need something to attract themselves to, to stay viable. Everthing would be getting further and further away from each other.

Supposing there are more than one universes as some suggest, would not the lack of cohesiveness of our universe cause the neighboring younger universes to grab our universe and pull it apart and gather our atoms unto itself much like a large galaxy will do to a smaller galaxy? If this was the case, then there would have to be more universes being formed constantly to catch these failing universes as matter can not be created nor destroyed, only changed into another form. The whole process would be like a boiling kettle of water. The problem is, where would be the energy source to keep this all going and how big is the kettle if there is one?

If all universes are expanding, eventually they must meet. When they meet, the weak atoms must be attracted to others in the neighboring stronger universe. Once they are attracted, their magnetic and gravitational forces will get larger and that group will attract more atoms as they come by until there is a large group of atoms. Perhaps this is the driving force of new universes. After the "ball" of atoms get big enough, it blows out forming another universe much like a star is formed. Maybe a universe is just a large star.

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin (Sent Monday, April 16, 2007 3:49 PM)

Delmar Fairchild:

Let me give your questions a try.

1) The current version of string theory do suggest the possible existence of an almost infinite number of bubble-universes, each with its own laws of physics. This is called the Landscape of cosmos. But the mechanism of how can this come about, and how can one possibly discover or prove the Landscape is not described. The Landscape is extremely controversial within the expert community, many claiming it is not science.

2) As long as there is matter/energy, there is gravity. This is established fact. Therefore, gravitation pull will always exist to bound the universe.

3) Both dark matter and anti-matter exist. This is established without doubt. But nobody know what dark matter is because it does not interact with known normal matter including light - it only reacts with gravity (some suggest also with normal matter under the weak force) and that how we discovered & measured its existence. But we knows a lot about anti-matter. We also know there is no natural anti-matter in the universe. Theory strongly suggests matter and anti-matter were both created in equal amount at the moment of Big Bang, which proceeded to annihilate 99% of each other, creating the vast amount of radiations that still see in the universe. The leftover 1% matter makes up the normal matter of stars and galaxies. But we still don't know why the leftover is normal matter instead of anti-matter.

4) Our current understanding is there is no possibility of the universe reversing direction in a Big Crunch. It will expand forever. This is due to existence of dark energy, which has an anti-gravity effect. In fact, it has been established that the power of dark energy has exceeded that of gravity as of some 7 billion years ago, thus causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Nobody knows what is dark energy - we've confirmed its existence, and knows the degree of its energy.

5) If any other universes start to interact with ours, there is no way to tell because it has to become like ours, with the same laws of physics, before it can interact. If you look into a lake how do you tell if it contains multiple 'lakes'?

6) Research is underway for a theory of an universe containing an extra 4th spatial dimension. Only the force of gravity can travel into/out of this extra dimension, but the effects are such that it is possible to prove its existence by doing experiments in high energy collider. If proved, it will be one of the biggest fundamental discovery of space-time, on par with Einstein's discovery of relationship between space, time, matter, and gravity.

You can get a basic review of our scientific understanding of the universe at:

http://universe-review.ca/

To (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:37 AM)

Thank you. You must stay up all night to be able to write at half past three in the morning. This was very interesting. I even have some more comments and questions, but I think the debate is about over for the night and everyone has to get home. You even wrote your comments that any laymen can understand. I think academia can get "into" themselves too much when they write. If they wrote in simpler terms, more people would understand and appreciate their work. When I read some of the comments further above, I got a bad case of ADHD real fast. I will get online to the above link. Thanks again.

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:07 PM)

Delmar, The only other time I've heard about different universes interacting is when they speculated that the big bang happened when two brane universes touched. Matter is not evenly distributed - they went on to say - because when they touched, there was a vibration in the branes. Again, I loved the "out-of-the-box" thinking on this. It would have never dawned on me that while we are supposed to be doing all this expanding, we really should be colliding with our neighbors!

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:17 PM)

Chris: That is the question I was thinking about. If there are more than one universes; if they are all following different laws and have different types of matter but are all expanding to infinity or even sitting out there without expansion, then some where, some time one that is expanding should bump into another (if they can't mix because they are different.) The expansion of our universe or of the other universe, depending on each size and how stretched out it is, should stop at that point of contact and take the form of the other universe and/or continue around it to envelope it.

Example: If you take one large soft balloon and put an apple (non expanding universe) in it, the outer edges of the expanding balloon (like our universe) will eventually retouch on the other side of the apple. The surface of the balloon then when touching should mix back in because the laws are still the same (unlike the rubber in the balloon)and continue on expanding out. Wouldn't there then be a universe inside a universe? What happens if the apple universe was actually expanding at a slower rate and got enveloped by the larger and faster expanding universe? Wouldn't the apple universe fill in and push out everything inside the larger universe over time? There would be a void in the middle. Is there a void in the middle of our universe? Maybe what we see is not the past when we look out to the event horizon, but maybe a new and slower universe expanding out behind us.

Also if the balloon universe can not remix on the other side of the apple universe for some reason, then wouldn't the resulting tube be a time warp for the balloon universe?

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:41 PM)

Lots of speculation going on and it should be encouraged, but until it is supported by experimental evidence it remains just speculation or unsupported belief, not scientific fact. String theory is currently speculation, but it does have plenty of mathematcal support.

Questions and answers about universes we can never experience it seems must remain speculation. There are plenty of questions about the universe we do experience and speculations about these questions can be productive. It does seem that Dr. Brian Greene would be justified in limiting his answers to questions that have some hope of being experimentally verified.

Speculation about whether our physical universe is expanding or not are closely on a par with speculations as to whether the force (gravitational) between the Earth and bodies on it is one of attraction or not. Einstein's General Relativity Theory requires that space expand (not be static nor contract). Einstein first tried to find a way to make this expansion of space coming from his General Relativity be unobservable by introducung a cosmological constant because the science of the time favored a static universe without any experimental evidence, bad idea for scientists. Astronomical experiments showed Einstein's cosmological constant to be a wrong idea because said experiments found the expansion to be the actual state in our physical univerrse. One should see the beauty (economy) of the physical universe starting all together with space expanding rather than having galaxies etc. popping into existence at widely different places in space. Besides, Special Relativity shows the physical inconsistency (impossibility) of simultaneous creation at widely separated places.

One can say that Newton's gravitational theory was shown to be wrong by Einstein's gravitational theory and, therefore, should not be believed or used in science; however, the main idea behind Newon's theory was that physical bodies attract one another as experiments showed and this fact is still correct (a fact of General Relativity also). Said "attraction" comes from both Einstein and Newton. It is a requisite for any replacement theory to be in accord with the physics experiments done in our universe, and necessary to have any hope of credulity in science. Similarly, any replacement theory that comes along which does not yield the expansion of space (with accompanying red shift) found by General Relativity will not find creduality in science anymore than a theory that finds masses do not attract in our physical universe.

Astronomical observations are not always as firm as falling body observations, but it seems most bona fide astronomers and physicists (including Dr. Greene) will feel that the expansion of our physical universe is on a par with respect to physical reality.
There is no astronomical evidence or physcal theory that would suggest that the antimatter was not wiped out (annihilated) by an equal amount of matter during the first few moments after the initiation (big bang). Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin in their "The Five Ages of the Universe" say that the astronomical evidence shows that matter beat out antimatter by about one part in 30 million to leave the matter now found in our universe. While this may not be as firm as expansion of space or attraction in gravity, I don't think Dr. Greene would think that antimatter had much chance of arising again in our universe.

Finally, years ago some speculated the red shift (a loss of energy indication) was due to light getting "tired" on such long trips from distant regions of our universe. Light does not "get tired"; for light (at its speed in our universe) distances shrink to zero in its direction of motion and time stops, a little strange to talk about "tiring". We all, now, know that said speculation was and is wrong. From our observational point of view it takes light about 8 minutes to get to Earth from the Sun. Light has a different observational point of view, specifically 0 time and we will have observational evidence to support this fact if we can ever travel at speeds close to light speed. At about 161 thousand miles per second (about 87% the maximum speed of light), we would find that the Earth-Sun trip would take only about 4 minutes (Earthlings would say it took us 8 minutes by their clocks) and the time would get ever shorter for us the closer we got to the maximum speed of light.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:15 AM)

Carlton, Alan just had a link to a physics page and the very first thing it said was "It may be one of the best-kept secrets in science: we really don't have a good grip on reality. Two of the best models of physical reality, relativity and quantum mechanics, appear to be fundamentally incompatible." I guess this is what was so surprising to me back in January when both you and Alan said we really don't even know what photons (et al) really were. I love science and testable hypothesis, but when even ordinary matter can act like a wave, you got to know something is up on yet a smaller scale: i.e. that their is an underlying fabric of space, not just smaller and smaller particles. If an original one- to three-dimensional essence were bobbing up and down within every atom and Planck of space, it might give the impression of an otherwise infinite universe expanding. About a year ago, another blogger here on the log referenced a page that said there were a dozen or so observations where the red shift wasn't what it was supposed to be and that the back ground radiation would be there anyway, even if there were no big bang. It's quite possible this was just a disinformation page, but do you know of ANY conflicting observations regarding the red shift? Could it just be gravity stretching out the wavelength? Would the light that just barely escaped from a black hole be red-shifted? Thanks as always for all your extensive feedback and I certainly hope you can understand my bafflement at the present state of our knowledge of reality. If it were me, I'd build ten LCH colliders each one stronger than the next! Knowing who we are honors the eons and the suffering of those creatures that fought so hard to put us into this most unique position of just being able to know. If we can figure that out, it would make it all worth while.

Chris Eldridge (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:22 PM)

Chris (and others),

Relativity and quantum theory not only "appear incompatible"; they are incompatible. Quantum theory deals with the discrete (quanta) while Relativity theory deals with the continuous (space-time). Continuous and discrete, just like infinite and finite, are contradictory. Quantum theory hints that space-time may be discrete at Planck lengths, but Einstein and his Relativity would deny it. String theory attempts to remove this difficulty between quantum theory and Relativity by replacing physical points (maybe a self-contradiction) with strings; but, until string theory has convincing experimental verification, we cannot claim it has resolved the difficulty as far as science is currently concerned. Your "bobbing up and down" seems to be like what strings do a lot.

I know of no troubles with red shift data. We and the Andromeda galaxy (along with others in our cluster of galaxies) are approaching, not receding, hence blue shifted. Don't need gravitational strength of black hole to see gravitational red shifts; light from our sun is red shifted in accord with General Relativity and laboratory experiments on Earth showed this red shift. In General Relativity, clocks in stronger regions of a gravitational field run slowly compared to those in weaker regions (clock at surface of Earth runs slowly compared to one above the Earth's surface). Like moving clocks running slowly compared to rest clocks has been verified by precision clocks at rest on Earth and precision clocks in jet planes, precision clocks a few feet above the surface of the Earth have been seen to run fast compared to those on the surface of the Earth. The principle of equivalence of General Relativity, that says physical experiments cannot distinguish between gravitational fields and acceleratons over limited regions of space-time, means that a precision clock accelerated, say, to the right will run fast compared to a precision clock at rest and remaining to the right. I don't know of a laboratory experiment confirming this last fact, but you can trust it just as well as you trust falling body predictions and experiments.

Sorry if I'm boring you with stuff you, Chris, already know, but a stray reader may get something herefrom.

As once before, I don't have time now to check for possible silly errors.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 8:24 AM)

Inflation theory as defining the first micro-moments of the Big Bang seems to have opened the door to the likelihood of this event happening not once, but perhaps an infinite number of times and at regular intervals throughout time and space. This naturally leads to the probable existance of an infinite number of universes living separate lives. Why not? Science may be forced to contend with the real possibility of an infinite universe of universes or afterall. The mathematical formulae employed to describe size, speed and rate of expansion during those first micro-moments in our early history are pretty mind-boggling and far exceed the speed of light by many magnitudes. So, from nothing to something in a very split second! Curiously, Buddhism anticipated the existance of an infinity of worlds and universes 2500 years ago. That prevailing metaphysical view or cosmology apprehends existence as eternal and ever-changing, without beginning or end. Maybe there is nothing new under the sun after all.

Terry (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 10:16 AM)

Much Thanks Carlton! I trust all this dark energy/matter that they've discovered since theorizing the universe was expanding, has been taken into account for red-shift. Even the gravity from the front, top, and sides of the photon would probably stretch its wavelength... As for the bobbing up and down, It's not that I envision "different" strings or one-dimensional objects doing it, but "the same" string/1D object countlessly represented in each planck of space: all matter having the same focal point.

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 5:45 PM)

The Hubble Constant (space expansion speed divided by disance from galactic- observer position) has been shown to not be a constant when distances become sufficiently great (Hubble was not able to look as far into space, back in time, as we can today) and, therefore is now called the "Hubble Parameter". Most astronomers today are firm about their recent discovery that the expansion is accelerating (distant galaxies, hence galaies in ancient past, have been seen to have slower (slower than what Hubble Constant would get) expansion speeds than those closer in (more recent time than ancient past). The astronomical experiments are so difficult and at-the-edge that later experiments may point us in other directions; however, the red shifts observed and used in these measurements will not be the source of any slips that might be found by future observations; it's the distance measurements that may become refined. Most bona fide astronomers have little doubt that current observations are qualitatively correct and that, for example, the expansion accleration is correct. They also have corroborating evidence to support their self-confidence in the acceleration result. While the Hubble Parameter may have a particular value at any given time in our universe, it, very slowly, gets ever smaller as our universe ages (years from now a given expansion speed will be found at a much greater distance than currently found). It is well to remember that General Relativity shows that the galaxies themselves are not moving but that the space between them is expanding and this "expansion speed" can exceed the maximum speed of light by as much as you wish. If the galaxies themselves were moving, speed in excess of the maximum speed of light would be forbidden by Special Relativity and LOGICAL SELF-CONSISTENCY. A self-cosistent universe requires this speed limit. It was seeing this absolute self-consistency of our universe that led Einstein to be so self-confident, in the face of those saying he was too self-confident, about experiments eventually showing his theory to be correct. WOW, was Einstein even right! If the astronomers' FAITH (self-confidence) in the "cosmological principle" (a generalization of the Copernican principle?), no matter where you put an observer-eye in our universe, said universe will appear closely the same as any other placing, our universe is homogeneous and isotropic, then our universe is infinite. One might, therefore, question the need for scientific consideration of any other universes, especially when we can't observe them. Again, NOTICE, the "cosmological principle" is a matter of FAITH; thus, one can say this FAITH leads to an infinite universe. If you put the observing-eye near our observable-universe horizon, it must see a horizon just as far away as (further than) our observable horizon; it can see (observe) well beyond our horizon (almost "twice" as far as we can from home, of course, we can see "twice" as far in a diametrically opposite direction from the placed, observing-eye). Placing a second observer-eye at the horizon of the first observer-eye will find that second observer-eye able to see well beyond us and the first observer-eye and so on ad infinitum, thereby, making our universe INFINITE. This result is just like trying to see the end of our infinite list of counting numbers; no matter how far you count (or go in list), there will always be many (infinitely many) more remaining than you have covered. Also, you might find it even more difficult to change the FAITH of astronomers in the "cosmological principle" than converting a radical terrorist from his forty virgins FAITH. Astronomers can provide you with observations (experiments) to show you good reasons for their established FAITH, but it is, currently, still FAITH or belief. Likewise for string theory currently.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Friday, April 20, 2007 10:58 PM)

My concept of time is like this. It will always go forward even if reverses. It's all in how we perceive it. If time reverses, your mother will be your grave and your grave will be you mother's womb. You will born old from the grave and gets younger and younger until you get buried into your mother's womb but you will percieve time as still going forward.

Ysmael Quitoriano (Sent Saturday, April 21, 2007 9:21 PM)

Carlton, Thanks much again for the feedback! Hopefully something like the VLTI in Chile will be able to provide us with much more accurate measurements, not to mention being able to see far further than Hubble. There is certainly a lot to look forward to! I don't necessarily discount the expansion of the universe. I'm just seeing things that have been conflicting with my own sense of the main scientific principles. I love astronomy and took a class in college so I realize some of the basic principles of making a hypothesis and then testing it out. It just seems of late that test results have come back quite different than expectations (heavy elements found in the most distant super nova... a much more accurate distance measurement to a nearby galaxy that would have called for a dramatic 10% shift in the Hubble constant...) and yet no one ever challenges the main hypothesis. They just keep inventing mysterious forces like dark energy to keep making their original assumption true. I just get the feeling that there are big changes afoot. Perhaps as we speak, teams are racing trying to verify the newest findings!

Chris Eldridge (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:27 AM)

Wow... I actually found the page I once saw that contested red shift:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

Basic Summary:
"A serious study shows the weakness of these arguments. A Doppler interpretation of the red shift is difficult to accept when one realizes that the number of red shift observations that cannot be explained by the Doppler theory is so large, that books [7]¸describing a long list of non-Doppler red shifts have appeared on the subject. Also, a catalogue containing 780 references [8] of red shifts observations, which are inexplicable by the Doppler effect, has been published under the timid title: "Untrivial Red Shifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue." The third argument, related to the 3K-microwave background, is also no longer valid, since it is now seen [10] that the 3K radiation must exist anyway, even if the big bang never happened. This last point is based on the argument that it is a fundamental law of physics that Planck's spectrum, at 3K, must be emitted by any dark matter at that temperature."

Again, the page seems very suspect if no one here has heard of this. I don't expect an answer on any of this. I'm just listing it for reference.

Chris Eldridge (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:06 AM)

Grote Reber Stuff

Too much is lost and no replacements offered if Reber's no expansion is right. For example, The great insights of Copernicus are lost; Reber's stuff puts us at the center of the universe, a very privileged position and difficult for science and Reber to explain; it may flatter our ego but loses many great scientific advantages and discoveries; the great insights of General Relativity are lost, again, with no replacement theory.

"No expansion" refutes General Relativity as strongly as "bodies don't fall in the gravitational field of the Earth" refutes Newton's Gravitation Theory.

Perhaps Reber fell victim to the misconceptions "Big Bang" may cause. "Big Bang" conjures up the idea of an explosion with debris going out from the center of the explosion, a velocity filter, that is, faster moving particles obviously further away from the center of the explosion. "Big Space Expansion" might be less misleading because it, at least, avoids the problem of having to explain why we should have the advantage of being at the center of the explosion. Instead of imagining particles flying out from the center of an explosion, which gives the wrong idea, we get a correct idea from imagining a rubber sheet that is being stretched (expanded) and causing particles attached to the sheet to become separated and the more distant the attached particles are from one another the more stretch between them. It is the "stretching" of space that "stretches" (red shifts) light, not an acquired-from- an-explosion velocity.

Earlier, I explained why light does not "get tired" and current astronomical observations make great difficulty for Reber to support his "tiring" of being bumped into, especially with the gravitational lensing of galaxy clusters now observed.
Before a theory becomes accepted by science it must stand the rigor of supporting all past scientific facts within certain limits shown in the new theory, predict new facts, simplify, not complicate, things (including application of Occam's razor?), and appear elegant among others most scientists would want. The Reber offerings have too many failures in the list of requisites to be taken seriously by scientific standards and is, most likely, why science is not currently accepting (nor likely to in the future because of recent discoveries his ideas can't find) his speculations. Remember Einstein's Special Relativity was put to the test and many scientists thought they saw even self-contradictions, but observations and fantastic phenomena that came along showed how the theory (original speculation) met every test, including no self-contradictions, is still meeting tests, and is still active, today. It's a prime example of the scientific method in action as was Copernicus' theory in his day.

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:00 PM)

Sorry Carlton, If I would have seen Grote Reber trying to say the Earth was at the center of the universe I would have closed the page and never brought it up. That to me is disinformation by the right's attack on science.

P.S. I trust you saw the great news that they've now found a small planet (5 earth masses) in the habitable zone! Heck, I don't know why they think the habitable zone is so important any more given all the moons we've now found with liquid water under the ice. Even free floating Jovian worlds would have many such habitable moons!

Chris Eldridge (Sent Tuesday, April 24, 2007 11:59 PM)

I was reading this a lot of interest until I read the line "Did God just create the universe the way it was, and that's it?" Why is the writer inserting religion into an article that should be just about science? He lost all credibility in my opinon.

kayleigh wilson manchester uk (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:04 AM)

I like the whole message

Kim Smithe (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:02 PM)

God created everything in his universal mind which programed everything accordingly, we are the individualized conscious/subconscious awareness of all of it. Truth Law controls, regulates and sustains everything. See, it wasn't so complicated after all. Keep it simple to learn more truth. Truth without proof is nothing but belief.

Lee (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:16 PM)

Only one thing to say. There is no other way that anything BUT God created the Universe. Everything has a specific purposes and work together in perfection until Man comes along and upsets the natural balance. Of course, there is a GOD. Certainly nothing that any human's or explosions could create. I totally believe in science. Studying and experimenting. But we will never create anything of any purpose.

Jan McCartney, McConnells, SC (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:25 PM)

As to credibility of a scientist who mentions "God." In 1732, Sir Isaac Newton's "Commentary on the Book of Daniel" was published, a year after his death. I have a copy. He was a firm believer in the existence of God as Creator of the universe, and his writings reflect this. He was NOT the refuter of the God concept.

J. G. Carver, Ph.D. (physics), Orange, CA (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:27 PM)

To exclude the possibility that God created the universe would in reality be scientifically irresponsible. In keeping with the scientific process all theories are valid unless proven impossible or a different theory is proven to be a fact.

Aaron (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:30 PM)

Hello! They have information of these subjects from year 2000 in www.geocities.com/filosofiact/Directorio.htm

Eugenio Tait, Mar del Plata, Argentina (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:42 PM)

I understand that we[Humans] sometimes have to ask why, but will figuring out where it all began help us understand ourselves anymore than we already do? Why must everything be proven on it's existance. I find it easier to believe that GOD exist and created these things rather than accept the "big Bang" theory and theory of evolution. For many years, scientist have tried to uncover creation with scientific proof to rule out the possibility of GOD and HIS existance. Why not just leave it alone? Will it make the world that we constantly distroy any better?

Bryant Barnett (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:49 PM)

There is no such thing as time without a human around to document it i.m.o.; otherwise we're back to, is their a sound in a forest if nobody is around to hear it? I don't think so. It would be a deaf ear if you will. There can be no sound, just like there could be no time concept.

Brett, Oxford AL (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:49 PM)

In absolute reality there is only spirit, differing states of mind produes individual conscious awareness, time, matter, dimensions, etc. Everything is a lot more simple than conventional scientist think. Truth Law is the secret to every other law.

Lee (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:49 PM)

There seems to be a fuss about mentioning God with the assumption that he dosen't exist.If your standing in your living room and there is an elephant in your kitchen that you can't see, dosen't mean the elephant dosen't exist.

Richard J, Vrabel, Boiling Springs, PA (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 5:50 PM)

Actually Marco Albert Einstein Did believe in God.

Rodrigo Valle Sylmar ca (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:25 PM)

There were comments made in the article about Mr. Hawking that got me thinking in another direction on the whole subject of other dimensions and the time movement issue. And because of controversial connotations on this subject I was hesitant to submit this idea.

Could it be possible that we actually CAN travel back and forth (and all around) in time but only in another dimension instead of physically. Could it be that one of the dimensions we have yet to understand is what we currently refer to as (and I do not like this term) the "psychic" dimension. Perhaps we have not yet discovered a way to fully scientifically identifiy this as a dimension and that it could be considered a dimension for time travel. I know that some people (and animals maybe?) are definitely able to "psychically" travel to the future as in predicting the future or travel sideways in time to know what is happening somewhere else to someone else and these events in time occur to the person as an actual memory. The same way that the article stated that we can have a memory of an event in the past but we cannot have a memory of the future. I personally contest that statement as it happens to me frequently to experience a crystal clear "memory" of something in the future with all the colors, objects, places, people, knowledge of the people, everything that would normally be included in a memory of a past event however I know it has not happened yet. And yes, I have many witness that these events do actually became a real event a very high percentage of the time. Ok, don't freak out and roll your eyes. I'm a very normal person and I have never felt "psychic". I have always felt that these "memories of the future" can be scientifically explained. When I read the article about so many other dimensions that we have yet to discover and the part about memories of past events and future events I logically put together that possibly what we currently refer to as "psychic" abilities could be eventually found to be actually an additional dimension in which we can travel around in time without disrupting events past, present or future. Sort of. There is so much that could be explained here but I'm just putting the theory out ther for shoots and giggles. This may all be a big load of black hole since I didn't take cosmology classes when I was in college and I'm no Hawking. Just trying to share one possible theory. Thanks for listening.

Dawn, Shumway, Arizona (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:32 PM)

There has been an interesting shift in the beliefs of many cosmologists - from being atheists to being agnostics. Doesn't sound big - but it surely is.

Scott, Chicago, IL (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:33 PM)

What if life exists all around us and on all heavenly bodies and requires exactly what is available on sight to sustain those life forms?" And we cannot detect them because of the limitations of our own senses. What if there is also a supreme being(s) who started all of the processes necessary for the development of these life forms, perhaps for their own entertainment and experimentation. I challenge you to really think outside of the box. As we grow in knowledge, the boundaries of the possible do expand. The existence of God doesn't necessarily need to be proven by science. Searching for the answers to scientific questions is in great harmony with a belief in a creator.

Mike Chapman, Nerstrand, MN. (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:39 PM)

Richard Guzman your comment somewhat got my attention.

Science and religion have always had their place together. Its hard to talk about one without bringing up the other. For example, the scientific relevance in the Bible itself, and its scientific accuracy. On the other hand you can only go so far in science until another one of the big questions comes up, usually having something to do with God or the "Big Bang" theory. Science has proven to itself that it can go to amazing lengths in creating and discovering, but theres always the untold things behind the curtain, the unexplained. Most of the time its the miraculous works of God himself that man cannot explain or touch or discover. If the universe was created by a stick of dynamite exploding, who lit the fuse? It's a vicious circle i think. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth."

-H

Hannah Newberry, Twin Falls Idaho (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:41 PM)

I do not know much about physics. It is a subject I never took. To be honest, all these comments are over my head. I did however find your article fascinating and have every intention of reading Stephen Hawking's books to learn more. This was a wonderful article.

Nicole Raimonde, Toledo Oh (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:44 PM)

Come on now! You are all just guessing and are figments of my imagination.

Gary Wright, Mongmong, Guam (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:44 PM)

In his book, "A Brief History of Time," Hawkings does indeed address the role of God in creation, and the history and the history and future of the Universe. The author of this (quite excellent, I might add) article is correct that Hawkings phrases the question in this way.

Ai Yu Lian, Wenchang, Hainan, China (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:55 PM)

If God does not exist, then why all the replies about this phantom entity? You could believe in the tooth fairy all day long. You could even try to get me to pledge my fidelity to this said fairy, I would simply smile and go about my business. Yet on the matters of eternity. If I claim to be a Christian, believe in God, keep his commandments and serve him all the days of my life. When I die, if he does not exist I lose nothing. I have simply lived a good moral life with doctrinal edicts to govern me.

However, if God does exist and he required you to keep his commandments and you did not. Then you have lost it all, and I have gained everything.

That's a gamble that I'm not willing to take.

Francisco Tacoma WA (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:55 PM)

What is your most rewarding acheivement? What brought you the most happiness?

Ryan, whitehall. Pennslyvania (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 6:59 PM)

Quantum gravity - according to some scientists; at a sub-atomic level we do not exist as matter - nothing exists except as light forms - we have a holographic universe. What appears to be matter is held together by the frequency; change the frequency and you change the state of the matter. Therefore, different dimensions can co-exist in the same space. Time is relative.

Maria Gonzalez, San Francisco, CA (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:08 PM)

I think that Stephen Hawking, describe universe as it is or we think it is. And he is a revolutionary physicist of our time. Since Ptolemy, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton. He is the Physicist of the Future introducing theory of Strings, Black Holes, Quarks and incredibly theories. I express my deep respect to him.

Pedro Pablo Juarez Alba, Mexico D.F (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:14 PM)

Maybe God (whatever you believe that to be) is the truth and science is the way, or journey, to find it. Myself, I think I'll just enjoy the trip.

Tom Tobler (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:24 PM)

The bottom line is no one knows, so people you are making yourself look not so intelligent. The man put up an article and you are attacking it with no evidence of your own. I believe in God, and that is my belief, so to me it is real. If you don't I don't have a problem with that.

Kevin Mill (Sent Thursday, April 26, 2007 7:35 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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=129538

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG