Up close with Dr. Hawking

Richard Guzman — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:00:18 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Alan Boyle — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:13:14 GMT

Richard, I included that reference because that's central to the way Hawking has framed the question. I added a hyperlink to a specific Web reference to provide further background on Dr. Hawking and God. Sorry about losing all credibility ... that won't be the first or the last time folks have told me that. I just keep plugging along, and I hope I'll eventually win you back.

By the way, as long as we're on the subject of cosmology in Seattle, I'd be remiss if I didn't pass along this link to a story about John Cramer's endangered experiment in retro-causality, written by my colleague and friend Tom Paulson at the P-I:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18015951/

I've written about Cramer's work as well, and I do hope he'll be able to do the experiment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817394/

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Blair Johnson, Seattle, WA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:16:14 GMT

In response to yesterday's column about Hawking, someone expressed concern that such a valuable individual would risk his life on a zero G or suborbital flight. I am glad that Mr. Hawking may get both of those opportunities. It was stated before his lecture last night that Mr. Hawking is no longer able to use his hand to control his computer, and that he now must use his eye. That leads me to wonder how much longer he will be with us. If someone who has contributed so much to science gets the opportunity to experience weightlessness for 25 seconds at a time, and possibly for a few minutes with spectacular view at a later date, then that is fantastic. And considering his inability to do physical things that most of us take for granted, how fitting that he would get to experience physical sensations most of us can only dream of.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

John Reeder, Houston, TX — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:18:24 GMT

Thank you for the article. It was extremely interesting to me.

About a year or so ago, I thought of the bubble filled with smoke scenario when trying to figure out why the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. What if, for whatever reason, a bubble (not of air, but maybe of time) was formed at the bottom of an extremely deep entity, and contained some energy and/or matter? The bubble would be drawn in the direction of the least resistance. As the resistance decreased, even just a little, the bubble would expand. This would pull and swirl everything inside the bubble without being aware of the larger motion since there are no visible or tangible reference points as the bubble grows and grows, heading for an ever more path of least resistance.

Oh well, just a thought.

Thanks again for the article. It was very nicely done.

Just holler if you get time and let me know what you think.

Just a thought.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:53:44 GMT

Needless to say, reading: "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."
...was just too cool! I'm not sure he's quite saying what I've been trying to argue and reason out, but it sure is close. The properties of magnetism and the forces of the atom could be just the physical "effect" of the 4th and 5th "physical" dimensions that are working to broaden out a singular one-dimensional essence that we are all inflated around.

P.S. I loved hearing all the details of how he talks! I guess I just thought he had a microphone up against his neck.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Jeremy, Texas — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:09:49 GMT

Why such a fuss over God? Concentrate on the article as a whole, not one sentence that may have a word in it that you do not like. I just don't understand..

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Alan Boyle — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:51:28 GMT

John, the bubble universe concept is interesting on a couple of counts.

It meshes with Hawking's "no-boundary" concept of time ... that the "beginning" of the universe is like any other point in the space-time continuum, just like the South Pole. To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking what's south of the South Pole. There is no sense of "before" before the beginning.

It also meshes with the idea that there are multiple universes out there, bubbles of different sizes and shapes. Some bubbles are a small blip, others are stable enough to allow for the emergence of stars, galaxies and eventually life.

The interesting thing is that if you wrap all this together, "time" is just the movement through a dimension on the surface of this extradimensional "globe." Continuing this metaphor, all moments in the universe's history exist as different latitudes on the globe, from the singularity at 90 degrees north to the singularity at 90 degrees south. Our brains are just constructed to move through the latitudes at a particular rate. That's what Hawking was referring to when he talked about the way human brains and computer brains work.

If you permit me to add a reference to God ... under this scheme, God might have created the whole universe of a piece, as a quantum construct in multiple dimensions. The passage of time is the movement through that construct on its surface, but if we could look at it from "above" ... if our eyes worked in 10 dimensions ... we might see all of the past and future of the universe spread before us (in a fuzzy quantum way, of course). Now that's a "God's eye" view. (I can imagine that Chris E.'s ears are perking up right about now.)

Up close with Dr. Hawking

John Reeder, Houston, TX — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 03:47:39 GMT

Alan,

I appreciate your literate reply. It was truly thought out in a short time span. No pun intended...

I definitely agree there might be many fish, (bubbles) swimming in the same "ocean" and some are expanding while others are going nowhere.

I guess it all comes down to where we are all headed. I for one will not comment on if there is a supreme being involved, but there sure seems to be to others that focus on that.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Fahim, Houston, TX — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:04:49 GMT

It's amazing that Quran also talks about multiple universes and the book came down 1400 years ago. The very first verse of the Quran says 'Praise be to God, Lord of all the universes.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Kristen, Surprise, AZ — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:22:20 GMT

Wonderful articles.. have to comment on "The passage of time is the movement through that construct on its surface, but if we could look at it from "above" ... if our eyes worked in 10 dimensions ... we might see all of the past and future of the universe spread before us (in a fuzzy quantum way, of course). Now that's a "God's eye" view." I think that time and the way it works was presented in just this way in Richard Bach's book "One".Some may say that the book is entirely too spiritual but it really makes a person thing about time and space and our place in it on multiple levels.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris E — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:23:59 GMT

Oh... I'm listening! This is a completely new and different way for me to look at time so I think it's going to have to sink in a bit. I do absolutely love the South Pole analogy and John Reeder’s description of how a bubble universe would expand as it followed the path of least resistance was just too cool as well!

Along the line of time’s direction, my somewhat limited Native American teaching was handed down from an Apache elder whose driven purpose or vision in life was to find the interconnectedness between religions. In Tom Brown's books about him, time is something rather easily transgressed, both forward and back, through visions and through ‘clear mind’ meditation. Human consciousness (which is said to hold the seed of god in everyone) is indeed an amazing thing. How would three-dimensional matter become “self-aware” without the perspective of another dimension or two? Consciousness is our connection with the very universe that surrounds us and can indeed connect with these other realms, even if our bodies cannot.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

To — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:30:20 GMT

Readers might like to know that things mentioned in Alan report like "an almost infinite number of bubble universes, 6/7 extra loop dimensions, anthropic principle, landscape of internal spaces", are all part of the conjectures of string theory. There are absolutely no physical hints of the existence of these objects. They came from mathematical deductions based on pure speculation that of all things in the universe are made from strings and 'branes'. String theory, however, is considered in deep trouble because of its 100% speculative nature, its inability to be formulated as a scientific theory despite heroic attempts to do so, and its complete failure to make any new scientific predictions. Which is one reason why many string theorists continue to talk about God and metaphysical speculations on how the universe began. Readers is well advised to treat these fantastic features of string theory as no more than science fiction.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Rene, Seattle, WA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:07:17 GMT

My thought on time moving forward and never backward, is much like standing in one place:

If you take a step to the left, you're moving away from your originating spot. Now, if you take a step to the right, sure, you're moving to the originating "spot" where you started, but it's not considered moving "back" to the beginning. Instead, this is now a "new" spot, one step beyond the left spot. The previous spot is much like spent energy. It's no longer the same. If you go back to the originating "spot", it's the same location, but not the same spot. It becomes a new spot. Think of it like recycling paper. An original sheet is created, spent, then recycled into a new sheet of paper. While the new sheet of paper looks and works just like the original sheet, it's not the same.

Just my thought. That's all. What's more important, is that Stephen Hawking rules!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Bernardo. Mexico City, Mexico — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:17:22 GMT

Slightly off Topic, but here it goes... I am a big fan of Hawking, since reading the "Brief History of Time" (maybe it's not an accurate translation from the book's title in Spanish, but that's my better guess) Personally I find Hawking's theories fascinating and I´m always interested in reading articles writen by, or about, him. Anyways, I recently got into an argument over the value of Hawking's contribution to modern physics and cosmology. My opinion is that he has enormously contributed to the advancement of science through his ideas, but I found a lot of people in my surrounding think more of him as someone who has helped with divulging the current state of what is known about the universe rather than a contributor to it... where would you place him on that regard?

Thank you.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Dan Nelson, Vancouver WA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 05:56:30 GMT

Alan, Great article, in fact I think it's one of your better efforts. I get a kick out of the reaction you get by using the word god. I have to consider myself an agnostic. Although I certainly don't believe in the Santa Claus like fairy tales most religions tell, not knowing exactly how this universe began, I can't rule out the possibility that in the billions of years we have left in this one, some culture somewhere in this universe could acumulate the knowledge and technology to create another. And of course, that could have happened before.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Dan Nelson Vancouver WA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:07:15 GMT

Just had to add...

What do science, religion and a beautiful woman (man) all have in common?

Worshipping any of them can lead to blindness.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Paul Lee, NY, NY — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:15:18 GMT

Greetings,....in relation to the ying vs. yang debate centered around Hawking (divulging in Layman's terms what is known) vs. scientific contributions, he probably deserves a prize equally for both. Plus, no one in the World before him ever discovered Black Hole Thermodynamics, (the fact that black holes emit particles and themselves eventually evaporate into space, poof, etc.)....anyway, hoping most "think tank" folk are not simply envious of his work. I really do not understand this debate, but 'tis just I. Kind thanks.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:29:24 GMT

I think John Cramer and Stephen are talking apples and oranges in regards to the direction of time. If the matter and light we are made of bubbles up from lower dimensions, then it is easier for individual photons and electrons to affect each other 'instantaneously' or even from the future because they are further down in a simpler the fabric or dimension of space. Out here, on the macro level, it’s almost like being on the outside looking in. Our progression is linear much as the shockwave from an explosion can only travel outward. If I were Cramer, I’d seek funding from some magazines or the Science channel or something. They are always looking for that “unique” take on a given theory and perhaps are even guilty of over emphasizing not quite fully accepted theories (dinosaurs, snowball earth etc).

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 07:54:44 GMT

Re: Richard G.'s post, When Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe", there was no one that doubted his credibility. But nowadays, it seems that a number of anti-religious zealots have decreed that God's name be banned practically everywhere. This practice has to stop. We must not lose our perspective, as they obviously have. Scientists can be either believers (Einstein) or non-believers (Carl Sagan), or a boy named Sue, but they'll still achieve the same results. Actually, we need to REGAIN our perspective.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ron England — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:01:17 GMT

Question is about gravity and blackhole; at the end of post.

Gravity is defined as a constant. It does not vary but remains the same throughout the universe even in a black hole.

A blackhole is created when enough mass has been acquired to cause gravity to prevent material from escaping from the object's gravity field. This the critical mass required to create a blackhole. Not until this critical mass is meet will a blackhole be created.

If as Dr. Hawking states: 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.

How is gravity then keeping the blackhole active if the energy of the blackhole leaks out. The mass of the blackhole at some point must drop below the critical mass for the creation of blackhole. Why does not the blackhole then revert to normal objects (a rebirth)?

Gravity which created the blackhole has to be the same when the blackhole's mass again drops to below critical mass.

The problem is that for gravity to maintain the blackhole after the blackhole's mass has dropped below this critical mass threshold, then gravity must be exserting the same gravity force it was that was required to create the blackhole in the first place.

That means Gravity and the force it exerts is no longer a constant but has changed to a variable force.

How is this explained? Either Gravity is a constant and the blackhole stops existing and the mass is rebirthed as objects or Gravity is changed once a blackhole is created and becomes a variable force and in not constant any longer.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Meg Cappetta, Charlotte, NC — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:03:09 GMT

My interest in the sky began with Carl Sagan as a young adult and then to Hawking ~ still fascinated by the unknown and its possiblities. Thank you for this article on Hawking and his lectures; can't wait for the next one.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

JP, Memphis, TN — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:22:33 GMT

Time is to be contemplated by man because it is and invention of man. The universe has no relevance to or of time as we understand it. If one is a believer in things greater than self than GOD must enter the equation of the unknown realm of thought and contemplation of things known and unknown. Pure sciences for sciences sake is a path down a closed mine. To many people young and old have a problem with the concept that there may be a power far greater than anything currently known or understood by mankind. The harder man tries to disprove its existence the more it becomes true, interesting.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Steve Lopez — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:37:17 GMT

Alan Boyle contradicts himself in the following passages, in which he says:

"The "beginning" of the universe is like any other point in the space-time continuum, just like the South Pole. To ask what happened before the universe began is like asking what's south of the South Pole. There is no sense of "before" before the beginning."

and

"Under this scheme, God might have created the whole universe of a piece, as a quantum construct in multiple dimensions."

In the first passage, Boyle says that asking what happened before the universe began is like asking what's south of the south pole. In the second, he goes on to speculate what happened before the universe began, i.e., south of the south pole.

If you accept the view of the universe propounded in the first passage, I think you have to abandon ideas of the universe as created or caused, because those are temporal ideas requiring both a "before" and an "after."

If time is part of the fabric of the universe and originated in the same singularity, then the sentence "God created the universe" is not intelligible. It is like saying, "Just south of the south pole there is a rock."

If my logic is mistaken I would like to understand where I have erred.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Charles, Mt. Home, Arkansas — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:38:05 GMT

The word God doesn't bother me so much except that there's never been any proof of any supreme being anywhere at any time. It's just a word we fall back on when we run across something we can't understand. If it ever gets to the point where we know for a fact that there is a God involved, I would be willing to give him credit. I'm not waiting for that proof to emerge. I don't think it ever will.

I agree that the use of that word adds nothing to the discussion and seems awkward in this context. But, if you're talking to the general public, I guess it might be easier for them to accept the information with the word God thrown in. It could also be interpreted as dumbing down. I don't think we should do that if the point is education.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Doug Lindstrom, Plano, TX — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:35:08 GMT

Just me 2 cents on the phrase: "Did God just create the universe".... why can't science and religion just get along. Religion has never defined *how* God created the Universe; I like to think it was through the big bang. Same thing with people, animals, plants, moons, etc.... A day is not truly defined by religion as a 24 hour period of time.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Peter Finley, Bloomington, Il — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:49:14 GMT

"If you permit me to add a reference to God ... under this scheme, God might have created the whole universe of a piece, as a quantum construct in multiple dimensions. The passage of time is the movement through that construct on its surface, but if we could look at it from "above" ... if our eyes worked in 10 dimensions ... we might see all of the past and future of the universe spread before us (in a fuzzy quantum way, of course). Now that's a "God's eye" view" God's eye view is an absolutley beautiful concept and a great argument stating the universe was infact created, and all possible outcomes could infact coexist in a froth of universes. God is defined as "To which there is no greater." If thats true, could it be as simple as blowing bubbles in chocolate milk?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Adam W. Wiktorek — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 17:27:12 GMT

Observing the expanding universe it would seem to me to be akin to observing an endless atomic explosion. The billowing fireball appears to be composed of innumerable cells of raging chaotic energy each racing away from the event.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

BIGDADDYMO, Earth — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:02:38 GMT

Guzman Rebut.- Why can't scientists believe in God? There are quite a few that admit that the way things are, are unexplainable and too perfect. But I am sure that one of the Earth's leading cosmologists is losing sleep at night because, "he lost all credibility" with Roberto Guzman.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Doug L. Atlanta GA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:17:41 GMT

Geeze...Has Dr Cramer gotten his $20K yet? Seems that a professor at UW will be able to come up with that kind of money on his credit cards and they pay it back when he wins the Nobel Prize...or uses his new understanding to break the bank in Vegas. Or maybe he could ask millionaire cartoon strip creator Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. He recently interpreted a Newsweek article on recent impacts technological impacts on reading the fossil record and came away with the belief that scientists are all wrong...and cites reverse causality to prove it...he's something of a pointy haired type of thinker on this. But what's $20K to him? A day's worth of proceeds from the sale of Dilbert calendars ought to do it. And then we'd have our answer.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

To — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:21:19 GMT

Bernardo,

Hawking's contribution to cosmology physics is very major, especially in his earlier years. His pushed the frontier of physics by directly analyzing black holes at a time when few has any clues on these most strange of celestial objects. He discovered certain fundamental properties of black holes that stand to this day, and which become a litmus test of any new proposal of fundamental physics. He has published many scientific papers and is very well-respected by the scientific community for his deep insights and technical/mathematical ability.

Although handicapped, he has written a couple of popular books and has a natural ability to connect to the public.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Thomas Moon, Spring TX — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:50:58 GMT

I have been a fan of Dr. Hawking for many years -- more about his way of thinking than some of his conclusions. A what if question: Suppose our "fundamental truth" that the speed of light is constant. What if the velocity of light varies on a cosmic scale? If this were the case, then our concept of space distances and space/time are incorrect.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

To — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:15:12 GMT

It is interesting to note, from broad observations of the public, and supported by this thread, that in today's America there is a major shift into Middle Age fundamentalist Christian belief of the Christian God as the explainer of all things from the creation of the universe, of man, to why you need to brush your teeth.

If one believe in God as the ultimate creator, in control of everything, do anything, yet beyond human comprehension, then fine. There is no need to pursue knowledge. One can return to Middle Age Europe, before modern science, and enjoy a religious life. (But try not to start any more religious wars.)

Since Newton, however, it has been confirmed that the universe can be understood rationally, logically, mathematically, precisely, reliably, without invoking beliefs or faith of any religion. Such understanding is very difficult, takes time and a great deal of intellect. But they are correct and the modern world is built from this incredible body of scientific knowledge. That's why thousands of universities in the world offer advanced education in the sciences.

The work of scientists is to engage in further discovery and understanding, which must be verified by experiments, and who must be prepared to abandon a proposal if it is not verified. That is, scientists do not engage in dogma, faith, revealed 'truth', proclamation by churches, and absolute knowledge, in doing their work.

It is tragic that America, a leader in science, is on a path towards the 10th century. Perhaps this is the result of a generation of younger people so poorly educated in basic sciences, rational thinking, philosophy, simple math, that all they can do is to engage in repeating the thinking of 10th century monks.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

PaulHickman, Reno, Nev. — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:32:17 GMT

I have read Dr. Hawking's books and many articles by or about him. Two points regarding his anticipated venture into space: First, as a person also permanently situated in a wheelchair, I can tell you that gravity is our enemy #1. Second, in his mind Dr. Hawking has lived in space for most of his life. How fitting that he should finally have the opportunity to visit the "workplace". Godspeed, Dr. Hawking. (oops!)

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Marcelyn Madden, Seattle, Washington — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 23:41:16 GMT

I always think it is interesting how scientists- who are by nature "open to possibility" are so often not open to the possibility of God... but, in fact, sometimes angered by the concept. Most of us who believe find belief opening, freeing- not constricting- and many of us are, ourselves, scientists- or have made our living in science- related fields. But, I realize, it is all so individual. Here's to rest and peace for us all- where "God" resides... and somewhere in all of this we find our "one-ness" with each other- because it IS there.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

island, DiracSea — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 01:16:09 GMT

To said:

"Readers might like to know that things mentioned in Alan report like "an almost infinite number of bubble universes, 6/7 extra loop dimensions, anthropic principle, landscape of internal spaces", are all part of the conjectures of string theory."

I might agree with most of this, but the anthropic principle did not originate with string theory and the "variant" that stringers use isn't even a structure principle, it's just a selection effect.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:40:01 GMT

If something like a God did make all this we are still left with the earth. This God appears cruel on some level assembling an earth that supports us and so much else but yet apparently ending it there...or here. Just tossed into a spectacular universe (onto a spectacular world) we may never understand or know. I sure would like to know what Dr. Hawking supposes happened between Venus and Mars.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

spooky action at a distance, Washington, D.C. — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:52:46 GMT

Whether or not we are able to name "God" as the creator of all things, the problem remains that we do not know how this all began. This is what we are trying to figure out. And this is exactly the problem we face--the problem of time. How can time begin, when it is supposed to be eternal?

I must disagree with Alan Boyle's analogy that looking for the beginning of time is like looking for something South of the South Pole. Time is not like latitude. The South Pole represents a point that is 90 degrees, not from the equator, but from the center of the earth. Looked at in this fashion, any point on the earth is also 90 degrees from the center. The South Pole is arbitrary when thinking about it as a mathematical "place" on the earth's surface. If the movement of time was like movement toward the South Pole, you would have to start from the analogous equivalent of the center of the earth, and measure infinitely only one direction. A better analogy would be to see the earth as a Magnet, and the South Pole as one of the charged ends. To find the beginning of time would be like finding where magnetism begins in a magnet. Yet we cannot do this. All we can say is that under a certain set of circumstances, specific elements (iron) obtain "spin" which for some reason attracts uncharged and oppositely charged particles of the same element. Why we do not observe this same phenomenon in water, wood, or even aluminum is as much a mystery to us as the arrow of time. The charge is stronger as we get closer to the origin, not constant like time. And in the dead center, there is no charge at all.

I happen to disagree with Hawking on "bubbles." This and string theory require multiple dimensions with divergent possible timestreams, which means that all reality is volatile and could be changed in an instant (like in Back to the Future when Marty almost destroys his own existence when his mom falls for him instead of his father.) I would love to see if John Cramer's ideas prove true. If possible, I would like to find a way to contribute to his experiment, although I can foresee some likely flaws with it as well. (e.g. just because two entangled photons are 50 microseconds apart doesn't mean they aren't still "entangled," and therefore linked. Proving that the particles behave differently may only reveal that there is a greater mystery to space--not that time travel is possible.)

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ian King, Seattle, WA — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 05:53:30 GMT

Two comments: to the gentleman who is concerned about gravity 'as a constant', there is a gravitational constant that relates mass and potential energy that is indeed a constant throughout the known universe - but the force of gravity varies with distance and the magnitude of the masses involved. That's Newton.

On God and cosmology: a few years back, an interesting gentleman named Frank Tipler came up with a theory that tried to address the nature of God in physics. Independent of the merit of his contributions, there was an incredibly important statement made about his work: for four centuries, scientists and theologians have refused to acknowledge each others' existence, and it's time to grow up. At the foundation of Tipler's theory was this argument: the concept of "God" is scientifically significant. If you can prove "God" does not exist - or in the alternative, is irrelevant to physical law - all well and good. But can you? And if not, does not "God" persist as a hypothesis to explain some or all of physical law? The unsupported statement "there is no God" is as arrogant as phlogiston, and the naivety of claiming that "God" is the answer to everything including how to raise your children and where you left your car keys is touching but irrelevant to discussions such as these. Have you tasted a quark lately? Is a quark more or less real than "God"? I do not endorse answering the questions of physics by saying, "And God said...." But I do not understand the vehemence with which some people summarily reject this hypothesis, offering not a shred of proof for the NON-existence of "God".

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:52:01 GMT

Self-contradiction

How often we all are self-contradictory and, probably, many get some satisfaction by pointing out the self-contradictions of others. We, oftentimes, create strawmen in others efforts to explain or justify their ideas in an attempt to destroy them and their ideas. Our democracy is in danger of being subverted by politicians and media who use this "strawman destruction" of their opponents to show their own claimed superiority. All this subterfuge makes it very difficult for voters etc. to see through to the important points that the politicians, media etc. are keeping us from knowing or seeing. In Alan's statements herein one may see and there may even be actual self-contradicions, but we gain more by trying to see the importance of the attempted points even in the presence of what we may see as self-contradictions. For example (not the best) should a blind person ignore or worry about the self-contradiction (from his/her point of view) of someone who yells "Look; your about to be run over by a car!"?

Science and Philosophy (or any other human endeavor) may seem to contradict each other; yet, there need not be any real self-contradiction when one realizes they are discussing different areas of human interest. If one takes some philosophical or religious expression as scientific (or vice versa) then a self-contradiction may be seen or claimed (strawman created) when the expression maker assumed it would not be so taken (thought hearers would be able to distinguish when speaking as scientist from when speaking as a philosopher). Politicians and the media just love to take advantage of such assumptions on the part of their opponents, especially when they know that the public will not know of or imagine the assumption.

Science cannot tell us about all areas of human concern and there are human interests that are outside the realm of science. When Dr. Hawking uses the word "God", he assumes people will know that he is not speaking in the area of physics but still in an area of human interest.

Most of us can thank Alan for not limiting his columns and comments to science only. Most of us have wider interests. Just look at the comments he is getting here.
Finally, accepted logic shows that the statement "There is nothing absolute." (or the logically equivalent, "Everything is relative.") is self-contradictory in all areas of human endeavor and, therefore, destroys the credibility of ideas or theories that invoke or rely on it. Science as well as philosophy, religion, etc. can have absolutes.

Here are some absolutes of physics (science).

(1) Nothing with mass (weight) when at rest can ever attain a speed equal to the maximum speed of light.

(2)If you take a round trip to a distant galaxy, you will be younger, on remeeting, than those who stayed at rest at departure point of your trip. (Precision clocks have been sent around the world and found to be behind the time elapsed on such clocks left at home. The time difference is only nanoseconds, due to shortness of trip and smallness of jet speeds compared to the maximum speed of light, hence need for"precision clocks".)

(3) The age of the observable physical universe is the same for all observers in said universe (No relativity of time here).

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Diana Lovelady — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:57:50 GMT

In answer to someone's (who did not give their name) comment "If one believe(s) in God as the ultimate creator, in control of everything, do anything, yet beyond human comprehension, then fine. There is no need to pursue knowledge." What an ignorant conclusion to make. The pursuit of knowledge is a deep rooted part of mankind to understand the world around them and beyond. The pursuit of knowledge will never be stopped. It was stated by a scientist no less, that science in and of itself by nature is a religion. Ponder that, good neighbor. The problem with scientists today is that they willfully ignore with extreme prejudice the very thought and topic of God as something real to investigate scientifically. That is the first tenet of their religion.

More and more freqently headlines cry "New Scientific Discovery refutes previous accepted findings and theories." Back to the drawing board, and start rethinking what we have extrapolated from the previously erroneous accepted findings and theories. The more they find, the more they realize they never really knew what they knew. As for the statement that God will never be proved. Oh yes, he will. When he stands before us in the flesh and gathers the elect (who never doubted for an instance) well, then I guess the scientists will sigh and say oh well, back to the drawing board. Time to rethink again.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Avtar Singh, Cupertino, CA — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:18:13 GMT

Dear Alan:

This is a great article describing the current Cosmic Conundrum, which demonstrates that the existing mainstream physics and cosmology theories can predict only 4% of the universe in the form of the visible matter rest 96% is unknown dark energy and dark matter. Also, the current theories are marred with a myriad of their own unresolved paradoxes and invalidated artifacts such as the multiple universes, multiple dimensions, black holes, quantum gravity, super-luminous inflation, observer’s paradox etc.

All these point to the possibility of some very significant missing physics or phenomena from the current theories. My research over the past six years has shown that this missing physics is the physics of the well-recognized phenomenon of the spontaneous decay of particles. Integrating this phenomenon into the general relativity, without introducing any changes to the original formulation of the general relativity theory, leads to the missing equation that resolves many of the paradoxes of the Cosmic Conundrum mentioned above.

The dilemma is that the mainstream scientists are not open to consider this proposed idea since the gatekeeper editors of the physics journals would not even entertain a paper for review unless it is built upon the current formulations of the mainstream theories that are already failing in a big way leading to the Cosmic Conundrum in the first place. This is a catch 22 for the mainstream science inhibiting any progress in resolving the very paradoxes that are its own artifacts.

That is where the role of the media and people like you becomes extremely important since you are conversant to the issues and open to all new ideas from people outside the box of the mainstream biases.

I am e-mailing you separately a paper entitled – “Enhanced Friedmann Model with Relativistic Effects Solves the Cosmic Conundrum” that was recently submitted to a physics journal but not accepted by the editor for even a technical review citing the very discriminatory argument of non-conformance to the current mainstream theories.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Wayne, Alamogordo,NM — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:54:15 GMT

In reading the text of Mr. Hawking's presentation, I find it very interesting that he poses a very simple and direct question concerning the creation of the universe. Either it was created by God, or only through science can we find out how we came into being. I have a similar question, do we have a purpose for being or are we a mistake of nature? I say mistake because for something to come from nothing doesn't make sense when applied to scientific reasoning. Outside of the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, name one other example (that is not a theory or hypothesis, but true hard fact) of something developing into a more complex form all on its own.

On the subject of time, man didn't create time, however man is continually striving to define time. And I find it's interesting that the concept of eternity is now being embraced by the scientific community in order to justify the Big Bang theory. It's been a main premise of most religions for some time now.

Hawking is a man in pursuit of an answer. Where his intellect and scientific understanding will lead him is anybody's guess. And whether he dies during his upcoming flight or several years from now, eventually he'll find the answers he's looking for.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chet Twarog, Hudson, MA — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:56:23 GMT

I am also quite annoyed at all the "god" talk. Could you please offer conclusive, rational, logical, empirical evidence that any "god" exists or existed? Have you not read any ancient mythologies of ancient civilizations that worshipped, had faith in, erected temples to, created holy/sacred sites, rituals, and holy days to any number of gods/goddesses/demi-gods/spiritual beings? Where are the goddesses Venus, Aphrodite, Oestre, etc.? Where are the gods Apollo, Zeus, Thor, Re, Aten, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc ?

There simply isn't any "god" at all. You are totally so egocentric "believing" that you are so vitally important that any deity would even give you a picosecond of thought.
Yes, you, we all, are unique, one-of-a-kind individuals not to be duplicated anywhere at anytime. Because we were all created by a reproductive biological act of our biological parents (or in vitro transplants) but death is the end of our existence.

"God" is our creation, too--an imaginary, make-believe, fantasy deity. Do you also have faith in tooth fairies, too?

In the 13.7 billion light year radius of our spherical volumed Universe, exactly where is the imaginary "kingdom of god"?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Marcos, Atlanta, Georgia — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:27:34 GMT

Sorry Carlos, but Einstein was an atheist. When he used the word God, he was using it as a euphemism for nature or the universe itself. He did not believe in a personal god, such as in the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic religions. Look it up, it's well documented on the web.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Avtar Singh, Cupertino, CA — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:27:54 GMT

Dear Alan:

This is a follow on to my earlier post (April 12, 1:18 PM ). This attempts to answer some of the questions raised by Steven Hawking and others based on the model I described earlier that integrates general relativity with the spontaneous decay of particles.

Hawking’s biggest cosmic questions are: What was the initial state of the universe? Did God just create the universe the way it was, and that's it?....... During his Seattle talk, Hawking contended that cosmologists essentially had to look at time in reverse….. why does time only move forward?

The answer to these questions is that time is only a relative entity and there is no one single clock in the universe which read zero time at any time. An absolute zero time is irrelevant as far as the whole universe is concerned. The majority of the universe energy resides in the form of particles such as photons and others that move at speed of light. For all these particles the time, according to the relativity theory, has fully dilated meaning no moving clock. Hence, the majority (96%) of the universe other than the visible matter (4%) has no time or clock as well as space (distances also dilate to zero at the speed of light). Hence, the majority (96%) of the universe is eternal and omnipresent meaning it never got created nor will it ever end.

Time, creation and evolution then remain a question only for an observer situated in the frame of the reference of the matter (4%). And even in this frame of reference, time is not an absolute entity and may exist as a continuum extending to an infinitely smaller and smaller value that is always infinitely larger than the number zero. Hence, the time zero or the so-called time of creation may be an irrelevant or invalid concept unsupportable by scientific arguments. Moreover, the existing Big Bang singularity at time zero does not support the existence of time zero.

In addition, the paper - “Enhanced Friedmann Model with Relativistic Effects Solves the Cosmic Conundrum” that I sent to you describes how the integrated model of spontaneous decay and general relativity resolves many of the existing unresolved paradoxes such as the multiple universes, multiple dimensions, black holes, quantum gravity, super-luminous inflation, observer’s paradox etc. and simultaneously predict the observed behavior of the universe including the accelerated expansion of the universe, microwave background radiation, and formation of matter (creation) etc.

Avtar Singh
avsingh@alum.mit.edu

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 07:48:13 GMT

Hi There, Marcos,

Nothing on the web (searches) is well documented. I got my information from a PBS program on Einstein. He also said, when writing to a colleague, (or maybe it was his wife) that he thought it was ironic, that having been an iconoclast all his life, God had made him an icon.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

spooky action at a distance, Washington, DC — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:18:37 GMT

Not to take away from anyone's hopes or ideas, but I wish that people would get their science right before throwing out concepts as if they were fact. For Avtar from California, I want to point out that "distance" becomes infinite as you approach the speed of light, not zero. Look at the E=mc2 equation and see that distance sits in the numerator (Energy, measured in joules, is kg*m^2/s^2) showing that mass and distance increase while time decreases. This is what Einstein bases his theory on, so unless you are using a different theory, distance increases.

For Carlton from Hawaii, I will note that your "absolutes" of science are all in doubt, and hardly provable.

1) The idea that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light is only believed because nothing is observed to do so. This is one of the big reasons people believe time travel will never be possible for us. Perhaps we could project an image of ourselves back into time, but not a real person (like in Deja Vu, a movie that Alan Boyle wrote an article about.) Yet there are many elementary particles with mass that are observed to move *near* the speed of light. With particles popping into and out of existence, as suggested in string theory, and with enough experimentation, we might actually find a way to break the light barrier.

2) If you take a trip to a distant galaxy...you will *not* be younger upon your return. You will most certainly get older at the same rate as everyone else. However, if you travel at or near the speed of light, time will (according to relativity) move slower for you than people who did not move as fast. The jury is still out on relativity, however. Consider this question with respect to the clocks you spoke of: One clock is on the airplane, the other is on the earth. Relative to one another, both clocks are always moving at the same speed (remember, all motion is relative!) So, why should the times be different? Is it possible that motion is actually "absolute" whereas nothing else in the universe is? There are many competing theories that can be used to explain why the clocks differ. Until those are ruled out, the idea of time dilation is still up for debate.

3) Regarding the age of the universe, how can we say this is true when we have never been off this planet, out of this solar system, or in a significantly different part of the universe? Does the universe look the same from within the gravitational pull of a black hole?

To suggest that any of these things are "absolute" only sets you up to be proven wrong in the future.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Demetrios D. Dionysiou, Athens, Greece — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:31:18 GMT

Dear Alan,

Prof.Hawking's lecture is a lot of interest without losing his credibility.He poses a question concerning the creation of the Universe with a reference to God.
I certainly believe that when he used the word God, he was using it as a very difficult problem also for a world- famous cosmologist.The biggest problem is the time's arrow.Why does time only move forward?

Hawking said:The Second Law of Thermodynamics but also said: Cosmologists essentially had to look at time in reverse.Maybe in the future Prof.Hawking
or other intelligent human brain will give the answer.

In my opinion, Prof.Hawking has enormously contributed to the advancement of modern Physics and Cosmology through his ideas.

Thank you
Prof.Demetrios D.Dionysiou

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:04:09 GMT

For Chet of Massachusetts and others. Chet, you have given an example of the strawgod ("strawman") many in our generation seem so predisposed to use. You have required, for your belief it seems, things that are self-contradictory or you seem to have designed to prove your claims. A mature (present knowledge and understanding) concept of God does not need to have have your self-created difficulties and the inconsistencies or incongruities you seem to want. Current human knowledge has progressed to the point where it is clear that a valid concept of God must go beyond science and the material world and most likely into the world of the infinite. Human knowledge, after mathematician Georg Cantor, included the concept of infinite things. Science agrees that it deals with finite things and is at a complete loss when things go infinite. If one only looks at or adheres to science, then there is nothing infinite (hence, for many scientists there is no God). Mathematics has brought knowledge of the infinite to humans in a unique way. Infinite things exist in the realm of mathematics. Humans, therefore, may choose to have their definition of their God be in terms of (nonscientific but mathermatical) concepts of infinity or infinite things. Again, such things are outside of science but not mathematics. The infinite things of mathematics seem to contradict the finite concepts of science, but this seeming contradiction is not actual; it is only due to our unfimilarity with the vastly different behavior of infinite things. For a simple example, we all know that the even counting numbers are infinite (go on forever, forever infinitude) and likewise for the odd counting numbers. Where our nearly exclusive experience with finite things causes us to feel that the infinitude of all (even and odd combined) the counting numbers must be twice that of either evens or odds alone, this finite bias (common sense) leads us astray; it's wrong, because the combined infinitude is actually no greater than the individual infinitudes (forever infinitude). Infinity plus infinity - infinity, not 2 times infinity. Knowledge of the rational numbers allows humans to see that infinity multiplied by infinity is no greater than either of the infinite factors in the product. Our finite (scientific?) bias screams because 9 times 9 is 81, not 9, and, as numbers get larger (90 times 90 is 8100, not 90), the difference (discrepency) becomes ever worse.

Human knowledge of the irrational numbers allows us to find an infinity (the infinitude of the continuum) which is larger than the forever infinitude (one could imagine that this larger infinitude is so large that it has the power to make something from nothing analogous to the way it makes a continuum from something discrete).

Cantor showed us that there is a hierarchy (that goes on forever) of infinitudes with each one larger than its predecessor; there is a forever infinity of infinitudes. Cantor also showed us that there is something "larger" than the infinitude of the infinitudes and called it "The ABSOLUTE". All this probably drives some scientists crazy, but mathematicians enjoy it. It may seem interesting to some readers to remember that the mathematics of quantum physics and general relativity were well known by mathematicians (long before either physical theory had been proposed) and appropriated by physicists to explian the finite world and to understand it better. It could turn out that the mathematics of infinity might help humans to better understand "worlds" (areas) outside of the physical, finite world (area).

Some may wish to deny the existence of infinite things, but they may be being misled by their finite bias or limited knowledge, if not simply playing the ostrich with the-head-in-the-sand role. However, those who believe individuals have the right to their own chershed thoughts, concepts, and feelings should understand how those with kowledge or experience of infinite things might be able to justify or defend their positions. We can point out the self-contradiction in the claim "There is nothing absolute." and, therefore, be justified in rejecting conclusions drawn from it, but there is no self-contradiction in the claim "There is something infinite.". Those who wish to associate the word God with something absolute or something infinite ought to be allowed to and find understanding for their association, just as those who have their reasons to disagree or don't like the association deserve similar consideration, as long as they avoid self-contradictions and strawman creations.

Hope I have no strawmen or self-contradictions herein. Don't have time to check.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Avtar Singh, Cupertino, CA — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:18:11 GMT

Dear Spooky Action at a Distance:

As per equations of specific relativity theory, both space (distance or length of rods contract) and time dilate to zero as velocity approaches the speed of light. You are right about mass increasing with the speed of light.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Alan Boyle — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:07:59 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

To — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:47:35 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:26:12 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:32:53 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris E — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:29:36 GMT

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!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ken Rothey, Wuhan China — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:56:20 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:50:15 GMT

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?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:16:24 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:40:37 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:49:09 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

To — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:37:51 GMT

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/

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:07:35 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:17:53 GMT

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!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Delmar Fairchild, Barron, Wisconsin — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:41:52 GMT

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?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:15:25 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:22:19 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:24:40 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Terry — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:16:13 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:45:21 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:58:16 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ysmael Quitoriano — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:21:52 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:27:33 GMT

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!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 05:06:37 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:00:03 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 03:59:20 GMT

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!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

kayleigh wilson manchester uk — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:04:51 GMT

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Kim Smithe — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:02:17 GMT

I like the whole message

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Lee — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:16:22 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Jan McCartney, McConnells, SC — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:25:16 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

J. G. Carver, Ph.D. (physics), Orange, CA — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:27:40 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Aaron — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:30:35 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Eugenio Tait, Mar del Plata, Argentina — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:42:51 GMT

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

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Bryant Barnett — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:49:06 GMT

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?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Brett, Oxford AL — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:49:48 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Lee — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:49:57 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Richard J, Vrabel, Boiling Springs, PA — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:50:39 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Rodrigo Valle Sylmar ca — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:25:05 GMT

Actually Marco Albert Einstein Did believe in God.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Dawn, Shumway, Arizona — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:32:01 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Scott, Chicago, IL — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:33:06 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Mike Chapman, Nerstrand, MN. — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:39:40 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Hannah Newberry, Twin Falls Idaho — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:41:42 GMT

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

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Nicole Raimonde, Toledo Oh — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:44:09 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Gary Wright, Mongmong, Guam — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:44:54 GMT

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

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ai Yu Lian, Wenchang, Hainan, China — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:55:07 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Francisco Tacoma WA — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:55:16 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ryan, whitehall. Pennslyvania — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:59:54 GMT

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

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Maria Gonzalez, San Francisco, CA — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:08:30 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Pedro Pablo Juarez Alba, Mexico D.F — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:14:27 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Tom Tobler — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:24:09 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Kevin Mill — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:35:55 GMT

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.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

pramod , gurgaon , india — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:54:44 GMT

if anyone wanna know about universe ....just read ramayana oh lord rama ....there u will found every answer about this universe ... like origin ..and . shape ..size ... and going towards ...ending of this universe .

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ai Yu Lian, Wenchang, Hainan, China — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:56:09 GMT

Some thoughts by Hawking on Creation and God from lectures on his website:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

"The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe."

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning"

"Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion."

"What all this means is, that information will be lost from our region of the universe, when black holes are formed, and then evaporate. This loss of information will mean that we can predict even less than we thought, on the basis of quantum theory. In quantum theory, one may not be able to predict with certainty, both the position, and the speed of a particle. But there is still one combination of position and speed that can be predicted. In the case of a black hole, this definite prediction involves both members of a particle pair. But we can measure only the particle that comes out. There's no way even in principle that we can measure the particle that falls into the hole. So, for all we can tell, it could be in any state. This means we can not make any definite prediction, about the particle that escapes from the hole. We can calculate the probability that the particle has this or that position, or speed. But there's no combination of the position and speed of just one particle that we can definitely predict, because the speed and position will depend on the other particle, which we don't observe. Thus it seems Einstein was doubly wrong when he said, God does not play dice. Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen."

"Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his sleeve."

Up close with Dr. Hawking

athena, madison, WI — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:09:06 GMT

You said that he took five minutes to provide an answer, yet those two lines say so much. I cut and paste the lines here from your article "General relativity allows [time] to loop back on itself. However, quantum theory seems to prevent travel into the past." Realistically, most people would not be able to write something like these in their entire lives.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Shari, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:22:31 GMT

I've read these threads and find some very amusing. As with any discussion some people were excited, angry (righteous indignation for the Christians in the group), words of affection and scepticism (just to name a few emotions). In answer to some peoples concerns about the validity of Stephen Hawking as a physitist. I say he is invaluable and as is any other "thinker" in society. When thoughts such as Mr Hawkings or shared they create an understanding that is fundamental to humanity. Then the scientists and mathimatitians, each with there own view, try to prove or disprove the point. This is valuable only when the answer is "proven" by hopefully the most pure research that can be collected. The theories with always start out with a bias hopefully will be able to be supported or denied by the facts. The best minds are ever changing, reaching for new views and coming to new conclusions. To think other wise is to be truly ignorant. We are all raised (or wired) a certain way. If you think you are not ruled by your emotions than you are not giving yourself and everthing you contact the benefit of doubt. To Stephen Hawking, "Have a great flight!"

Up close with Dr. Hawking

dd, Norman, OK — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:28:51 GMT

Ysmael, then who digs us out of our grave? & when or how does one know to act on such a quest? just wondering. I see your point on reverse time just seems weird is all.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

SLEM O Toms River New Jersey — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:56:29 GMT

I just registered the following and am awaiting a patent #:TIME=EXISTENCE=INFINITY=UNIVERSE=GOD.Time as you earthlings know it does NOT exist.Remember,time stands still

(TIME,EXISTENCE,INFINITY,UNIVERSE,GOD),we merely perceive our organic decay in the process of ageing as passing through time,which I have told you,does not exist.This MYSTERY,in cultures old and new,invariably undergoes 'deitification';there is actually no past,present or future,merely RELATIVITY(E=mc2)which holds inexorably,mathematically,philosophically,theologically and otherwise;THE ONLY ABSOLUTE,THE ONLY TRUTH.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Bobby Garner,Wichita,Kansas — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:17:27 GMT

I have answers to all the questions any.one has about existence. The answer to time reversal can be solved when you are able to reverse a thought.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carroll Pooler — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:31:01 GMT

I feel time is recycled. The concepts depend on what is projected to the observer at the time of observation. Not what is completed or whole. Thus the spatial environment is relative as well. A simple concept with a great need for insight. No need to keep private.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

jeffrey c Boehlow St Louis Mo — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:41:45 GMT

yes! hawking does make the idea of god more plauseable. god that is, like you or myself might never before imagined. this is an incredible article! thank you so much! tell Dr Hawking YO BROTHER!KEEP KICKIN IT! THANKS AGAIN!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Gail Lehman, Prairie Farm, WI — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:43:52 GMT

I adored this interview article on Mr. Hawking. I've always admired him and his contributions to science. He is a remarkable man and I wish that someday I would have the opportunity to meet him. Thank you for this interview posting; it was a pleasure to read.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Geral Berkovitz Sudbury MA 0l776 — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:49:37 GMT

Dr.Hawking's image of things/information being lost forever as they are sucked into a black hole was never a happy one for me. How pleased I was to learn in Ron England's posting(April 11)that Dr. Hawking has now created some wiggle room in the form of "Hawking Radiation", contents leaked OUT of a black hole until the black hole itself dissipates. As Mr. England reasons, the idea of a leaky black hole suggests that gravity may no longer be a constant once a black hole exists. As a clumsy person who must forever replenish supplies of china and glassware I was delighted to think that maybe somewhere in this universe gravity loses its power under certain circumstances whatever they might be, though I can readily see that would probably create more problems than it would solve. The tea cup reassembling itself back up on the table was, of course, my favorite moment in the video of Dr.Hawking's "A Brief History of Time".

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Brian Pierson, Philadelphia, PA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:53:18 GMT

Why is Mr. Guzman offended by the mention of God? The true scientist must be a skeptic, but also open minded. The individual who must dismiss the existance of God out of hand usually has emotional reasons for doing so, not scientific ones. I felt the article was well written; I didn't expect a scientific paper.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Robert Cambria California — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:04:55 GMT

WOw, a bunch of self proclaimed rocket scientists trying to disprove God when all they can talk about are theories.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

rosemary-wang,chongqin,china — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:06:56 GMT

how great,how great,though i can't fully understand what the article talking about for my poor english and physical theroy.but i was aborbed in it at the first reading.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Cleverles1, Longbeach, So Cal — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:49:34 GMT

Hopefully Mr. Hawkins was joking when 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." It probably wasnt a joke. heh-heh.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

John Bush, Hemet, California — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:49:34 GMT

Some years ago, I think less than 10-12, I was at
Disneyland in Anaheim, California, walking around waiting for the appointed time to meet up with my wayward children. The point to meet at was the Thunder Mountain Roller Coaster Ride (it is shaped as an old narrow guage steam engine with several cars that the riders sit in to experience the thrill.

Much to my surprise, no less than Mr. Stephen Hawking
was wheeled up by his two attendants and they stopped right in front of the VIP entrance and put on the brakes. Lifting Mr. Hawking out of the wheel chair they carried him to the train and put him on it in a car all by himself. The regular public got on but nobody got onto his car.

I was amazed and I watched the train leave the station and Mr. Hawking was on it. I had to await the end of the ride as it took off through the first tunnel and disappeared from view. Much to my delight when the ride was over, I found I had not been imagining this, he was still sitting there in his own little train car.

His attendants moved in and carried him back to his wheel chair right in front of me. I swear, whatever you call the look on his face, I deemed it a smile and a communication of a deep love of life.

I am so glad he got to finally take a real ride. I hope he gets to go to the Moon or Mars or somewhere else in his lifetime. No one else can appreciate this kind of thing the way he does, I know I saw it.

John

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Cleverles1, Longbeach, So Cal — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 02:56:43 GMT

God is a Theory!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Harrell Sellers, Brookings, South Dakota — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:04:40 GMT

Most of the posters here missed the important aspects of the presentation. The people who focused on the fact that Hawking mentioned God (god) missed everything. Even the fact that Hawking realizes that the Second Law defines the "arrow of time" (no violations of the Second Law have ever been observed although quantum fluctuations would allow brief violations).

Forget the fact that Hawking mentioned God. So did Einstein who was an agnostic and didn't believe in a God that "tallies the fall of every dove" (quote from Carl Sagan). The quote is from Sagan, but that is also what Einstein believed, despite the fact that he mentions "god".

My favorite Einstein quote: "A THEORY is something that no one believes except the person who made it. An EXPERIMENT is something that everyone believes except the person who made it".

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Cleverles1, Longbeach, So Cal — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:06:01 GMT

Beautifully written John Bush.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

harry springfield ohio — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:48:35 GMT

do anybody read lately the book "jeshua" lately because that book proved GOD EXIST.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

L S Peters, Kissimmee,Florida — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:01 GMT

I have followed Mr Hawkings career with fascination since the first moment I read about his work. I applaud his ability to help the rest of us think about our exsistance in ways we would not have taken the time to question but I give him a standing ovation for his ability to do so in the face of such personal physical stress. Most of us would have given up long ago. I am always eager to read new theories and evaluations of old theories from Mr Hawking and I applaud you on your well written article. Seeing the smile on his face in the news tonight during his weightless flight was so special. L S Peters

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Norrita Sanders — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 03:58:04 GMT

I am always impressed by Prof Hawking and I know I don't always understand him but I am rooting for him all the way. I wonder if he has read the "Kolob Therom" by Lynn Hilton. Its a Mormon's view of the universe. It is a mind boggling book but fits scripture so well. Tis only about 80 pages but Have read it several times. Loved it.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Mack Rigby — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:07:10 GMT

Chet,

I know it is hard for people like you to accept that God created the universe and everything in it. He also gave you the ability to rationalize and think intelligently. The theory of the "Big Bang" basically says that everything that we see came from a period no bigger than what you see in paragraph. And guess what the theory also claims that the period came from nothing. It takes more faith to believe in that than it does that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. There is order in this universe. Take a look at a blade of grass or the human makeup. You think that all could happen by chance. Not in a million years, or as you evolutionist say 4.2 billion years.
That is hilarious. Go to Stonehenge and say "My, would you look at what the winds blew together. No you would say "What civilization built this". Look at the universe. The bible says "HIS INVISIBLE ATTRIBUTES HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SEEN" That means that none of this could have happened by chance. Not in 1 million years or a trillion years. The universe is ordered by a sovereign and omnipotent GOD.

\WAKE UP AND SEE WHATS ALL AROUND. You know that there is a quote now that Charles Darwin is dead and it stated " EVEN DARWIN BELIEVES NOW ". of course it is it is too late now for Darwin, but it's not too late for you or anyone else on this site to repent and respond to God. Remember, Eternity is forever.

Make the right choice. Quit trying to be smarter than God and realize God gave your abilities and can take them away anytime. Repent and believe my brother

Up close with Dr. Hawking

joseph silva — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:09:46 GMT

from the more simple to the most complex, that is all about it, the information in the black holes is no lost, its change all the time , the common sense tell us that thru the infinites black holes the information being improvement until the last step the creation of the human being that observe by itselt the universe that create us. we create the time when a persona dies the time its gone for the persona. then only exist the present continuom for the personas alive that are witness in its particular universe that live.its mean that the time only exist in our mind .it doesnt exist outthere, because we saw all the time things that dont exist anymore changing an any tiny period of time.Newton tell us onetime that our reality is a singularity and we dont know the inmense reality behind us.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Danny Pena — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:47:17 GMT

Almost every other comment from readers mention God and even question God's mingling with science; but if we think that God is not part of the creation and the whole cosmos why we can not escape to questioning it?. In fact by doing so we are validating Mr boyle in introducing the issue. With all my respect I am still not convinced one way or the other, and I find this delightful. Makes me wonder.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Dan McCorkle Cheney, WA. — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 04:51:05 GMT

Thank you Mr. Boyle it is a wonderful article. I have been a fan of prof. Hawking for a long time and I never get tired of reading about him. Thank you again for another glimpse into his truly incredible mind. To those of you who wasted our time arguing about God: Grow up. And to the Dr. : Have a great trip, you deserve it!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Bryan Flores, Fontana, CA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:06:44 GMT

This is crazy so who created the bubble these theories are always going to change hey we have small minds compared to the universe we will never understand period. all these are theories so who created the black holes did it just appear?there has to be a creator that has no past or present but just is.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Veronica Bernabe, Baton Rouge, LA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:22:45 GMT

Where can I go check to see if Steven is coming anywhere near my university for his U.S tour?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

bryan flores, fontana, ca — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:25:10 GMT

How crazy is it that we are the only creatures that have gods. Why do we need god. If the theory of evolution was right the god gene would be taken away and we would be like animals with no worries about the after life. Why do we need a creator because we once had one and because of are sin we have been seperated. Thats why we need jesus. If evolution was right we wouldnt have doubt and we would just be.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Jerry, MD — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:45:16 GMT

The Singularity "occurred" 13.7 Billion years ago and the universe is linear (MAP). I had a little problem with advanced calculus (haven't had to use it) and this stuff is great except that it hurts my head. Just tell me, with proof, if the dark matter came before the singularity and if light will shine through a box if the dark matter were removed.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

John Curreri, Philadelphia, PA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:54:12 GMT

A translation of the ancient Tao Te Ching (number fourteen) describes the universe as "an unbroken thread beyond description".

Numerous theories, while fascinating and informative, have not yet really described it better to me.

For now, I try to satisfy my curiosity by working on my theory on the "existence of theories".

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Kelly Crutcher, Melbourne, FL — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 05:56:20 GMT

Since I was a little girl, I've admired Doctor Hawking's work. I first learned about the physicist and his work in grade school. I've also read about his theories online, but, so far, I've never had the chance to find or read any of his books. That's something I intend to change.

I'm also a Star Trek fan; one of my favorite episodes was the Next Generation episode "Descent" where Professor Hawking guest-starred as his own holographic double. The Vulcan salute is the best way to express my hopes for him: "Live Long and Prosper, Professor Hawking." :)

Up close with Dr. Hawking

steve garman, decatur, illinois — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:45:42 GMT

This not being my field but nonetheless fascinating, can anyone recite to me the proper scientific definition of "time", and how it is different from "space"?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

RozElon, Phnx, AZ — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:12:12 GMT

When I was little, I used to wonder if it "became night" because God got called to supper and turned out the light in the his toy room when he left. These days, I sometimes "daydream" that the Universe might be God's body and the Earth might be his kidney.

I really love learning about and thinking about information from Hawking.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Ben Clarke, Perth, Western Australia — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:24:25 GMT

I feel the debate on a higher consciousness or being to be the creator of space and time in our universe is an ancient evolutionary mindset. we, as 'human beings' have to come to terms with the fact that we are, and have always been evolving, for perhaps 13.5 Billion years. As is said, we are a very complex form of energy exchange, witch can be attributed directly to mass attracting mass, namely Hydrogen. Hubble has given us a possibility to understand our past, present and future like no other point in human existence. Why do we persist, as 'intelligent' beings, to theorise God?
I have viewed countless documentaries on human existence, evolution, religion, crop circles, and many, many doco's on space and time. One doco had me thinking about string theory or Unity and the unexplained paranormal! Humans explain God to be all encompassing, everywhere and nowhere at the same time, cant be wasted or destroyed! The same is said when discussing energy.

White lights or 'Orbs' that appear on film at the sights of an imminent crop circle or site of paranormal activity are said to give off not only light, but heat and slight radiation. The same can be said for most other reactions, like thermonuclear fusion or a simple light globe from electromagnetism. The 4 forces of the Universe, being; Elecromagnetism, Strong nuclear force, Weak nuclear force and Gravity. From this, one could conclude that these 'Orbs' are energy, or a reaction that is give off forms of energy. not only energy, but seem to move in direction. Crop circles being the most intricate symmetrical shapes known to man!

Could this be 1 or more, of the 11 dimensions of space time that Unity describes? We are an 'intelligent' electro-bio-chemo being existing on the cusp of existance, between geo thermal activity and the vast cold expance of space and time and all the catastrophic events it contains, we have only been given this existence by the action of the 4 forces in the universe acting on matter over Billions of years. Who's to say that the 11 dimensions we co exist with are inhabitable! who's to say there is no intelligent beings living out their existence in one of these dimensions. Just because we as humans havent had the need to evolve mechanisms or the sense to see this directly with eyes or technical apparatus, does it mean it could not be?

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Trent Hoisington — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:44:31 GMT

Time is a illusion base on the observer. Time for a person for example is different from a sub atomical partical or a rock. Time observed by children is differrent than that of a older person or animal because the way different creatures experence it.The universe is in a constant state of being born, living and dying yet only to be reborn like all things in the universe. Nothing never dies only evolves in a constant state of change always on a path to improvement.People concern about God being the creatator, if they are referring to a actual being I certainly think that he doesnt exsist but the universe has many forces, the ones that effect us the most are good and evil. The force of good that created everything and causes all the wonderful things we experence could be called god. The confusion that religions and goverments cause are tools that negative forces use in their conflict with good and evil. This is a never ending battle. These forces could be call god and the devil. There was not one big bang but many smaller big bangs that happen over large amounts of time.In time the Milky Way and its stars will all fall into the center.After time it will create its own smaller big bang. And time for all the new objects and creatures will start over.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Dr.J.A Stoll Brisbane,Queensland,Australia — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:22:46 GMT

Based on 2 Einstein Quotes 1)imagination is more impt. than knowledge 2)Intuition is the most valuable of all String theory(Prof.B Greene)each string infinitesmally small(billions times smaller than an atomic nucleus & therefore the precursor of all sub-atomic particles, Liberated at Big bang-sub & atomic Soup & Ljnear Time

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Franchesco Martini, Hanover Park, IL — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:04:41 GMT

Most of what is written in this whole log is better than what can be learned in a classroom or course because everyone's input of knowledge and point of views are just as equally important in understanding and contemplating the subject matter in insightfully unique ways.

I find everyone's comments intriguing and invaluable.

Thank You all.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Felicia McCloud -Atterbury — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:50:10 GMT

I enjoyed this very much, also since I am a theology major and find religion as important to our history as science, seeing as that both are largely built on theory but have some very solid answers that aid us in understanding our existence. I appreciate that God was added as a theory in the article. I find that until science can prove a theory on how the earth came into existence, they can not rule out God. The more likely explanation of how such a complex system came to be is that someone “wrote the program”  I am always thrown (in this day an age) on what makes that so hard to believe.

I also found it intriguing since this is not my field that to quote Mr. Hawking “General relativity allows [time] to loop back on itself. However, quantum theory seems to prevent travel into the past." Also I was intrigued to read the information on what he called a “10 or 11 dimensional universe” and how he talked about these dimensions ( at lest 7 of them) being rolled into small loops. This information on dimensions added to other things I have learned about physics, such as the fact that an object can be in two places at once (this have been proven and is being done in certain labs), may explain Gods ability to be in the past present and future all at once. The part of physics that Hawking says prevents travel may have been added as a safe guard to prevent us from having this same freedom. I loved the article It will help me build wonderful theory’s for my field. It was also written with great thought as to the personal additions about Mr. Hawking were very important and wonderfully added.

P.S. I hate to read online articles, but I could not help but start this one and after I started I could not stop reading it!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Francisco Tacoma WA — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:33:47 GMT

The Big Bang!!! Yes I believe in the Big Bang. God spoke "Let there be light" and BANG!!!!!!!!!!

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Julio C. Banks, Port St. Lucie, FL — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:22:09 GMT

It is interesting to see how people get offended at
the mere mention of the name God, or even Jesus but
when some mad man such as the one who shot 31 students in Virginia, we are shocked. Life is meaningless unless there is a place called eternity.
That is why when some person dear to us "passes away" we feel that "they should have lived longer" and that
is because "eternity is built within us"

God bless :-)

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Jim Wild, Williamsburg VA. — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:52:57 GMT

Lots of debate about God or no God in here. I feel as though belief in God is for those who do not understand science and the mind boggling expanse of space. We live in a very tiny place here on earth with limited knowledge as to the way things really are billions of light years away from us. I think that great thinkers like Einstein, Hawking, and countless others have broken the barrier of realistically accepting that an entity of some sort created all of this. Just like children believe in Santa Claus. With age, experiance, and knowledge, the child will naturally gravitate away from this belief. However, in the case of religion, the child or even adults can not shed the believe as easily because it is crammed into thier brains by parents, churches, society, ect. Simply put, the people who have a great understanding of the universe and its complexities have gone beyond thinking such a story of creation is feasible. They might think it totally laughable. However, in today's society, it might be frowned upon to have such a notion. So these scientists might say they believe in God to be nice and not be labeled a dirty word like an atheist. When in reality, they do not believe. Just like presidents and world leaders. They might not believe, but to admite to that would be the end of their political careers. Religion is used as a pawn to play the silly game of acceptance.

If you look at numbers, you will find that a higher percentage of poor and/or less educated people on earth believe in a God. One might respond to that by saying, look at the percentage of people on Earth who believe as opposed who do not. As I have suggested, I think we are primitive beings with little understanding of the cosmos. And just because 99.99% of the people believe in something, does not make it a fact. Consider this if you will. God created the universe,,,, then sat around and waited billions ans billions of years before he decided to create his main project, called mankind. Then,,, insured that mankind would only exist a micro-second in time. Also insuring that his mankind project would live in starvation, wars, and utter misery for its duration. Seems to me that he would have at least made exsistance pleasurable for us. If there is in fact a God that rules us, he failed in his project. If a simple thing like earth can not be managed properly by this 'being', who is to say that heaven is so great? Maybe our souls continue the starving, misery, and waring at the pearly gates.

Just my opinion. However, the point is, I think a person like Hawking secretly or not so secretly laughs at the concept of pure fantasy.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

DR J Pitt, St.John's, Newfoundland — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:19:59 GMT

How delightful! What good men incorporate the ideas of a Creator to be woven so fantastically into the logic of the knowable Universe! I was under the impression that many and most cosmologists (Hawking and Einstein being exceptions) were cynical men, whose pride and limitations prevented them from considering multiple truths (branded religiously or scientifically). How many open-minded many of these people are!

The first thing a man has to do with himself, before true knowledge is attained, is rid himself of his own prejudices, and even opinions. This is to say that much truth, ethical and cosmological, can be hidden from a man by his own identity.

Einstein was a firm, non-spiritual believer in destiny. Every tiny quark and wave in the Universe was pre-destined to behave the way they did. He said, from the creation of the Universe, all probability in every aspect was relative to itself, and clicked together like a big puzzle. This implies that there was one one action that any one object could take. This included pre-destination of the Earth, as well as the pre-destination of every man's will.

Let me put it in a form that isn't gibberish: The second you drop those dice, the angle on which you release it, every molecule of air on the way to the site of impact, every nanosecond of time to get there, every bump in the surface, was pre-made and the result of many other calculations from the biggining of the Universe. These details pre-dtermine that your dice would roll a four. All probability is a product of itself.

It is quite ridiculous to assume that the Universe is only as we know it. That's why nobody does. There are more details in the Universe than any human being can imagine. No one needs to be told that. What about God? There is no shame in exploring "if". Hypothetical subjects may be for all we know a very hard truth. It is good of men to explore "if". It elaborates beautifully on "why".

Suppose that there existed a being, let's call them "God", that was somehow an all knower. This sounds quite impossible, and is indeed quite ridiculous to think about. How would the being 'know' all of the Universe? This sound quite absurd. What if, when the Universe was very small, the size of an atom or a grapefruit, our being knew it inside and out. Suppose even that the being created the Universe, and was quite familiar with what he was going to create. Say that every law of quantum physics, every law of relativity, every rule and notion that we have yet to understand, were quite simple and calculated in his infinite brain.

Suppose God knew everything at one point in time.This would mean God would, assuming they were brilliant enough to calculate many things at one moment, would know everything at every point in time. This would mean God would know the future.

That means that time is nothing in his eye. His mind would be quite unlimited by time as we know it. Every moment would be knowable. God's 'present being' would not be of any signifigance. God would exist beyond the scape of time.

Alas, different conclusions are drawn from different perspectives.

William Blake was a poet, painter, engraver and philosipher in his time.He was 'gifted' with 'visions', naturally dismissing him as a loony. His visions incorparated a forgotten incarnation of God: an ifinite God. Many mysterious things and many confusing meanings come out of the word "infinite". It can mean so much at once...

Blake's God was many times greater than man. His omnipresent conciousness can hold more information than a silicon cube the size of the sun. But how can 'God' be many times greater than the most intelligent beings in the known Universe? It no longer sounds as absurd as it once did.

Blake made drawings of his visions, wether he understood them or not. He drew God, in the shape of a man (without genitalia, as none of his depicted angels did) creating the Universe on a different plane of being. This plane was white. It is truth that a man can get lost in the details of the material world. It is good that a man should know his spirit.

Blake was socially punished as a blasphemer for his mysterious and cofusing ideas. The public said he was invalid. They did the same to Galileo.

The Universe, depending of what you've known or heard, is a less finite and absolute place than once thought. You don't need Mr. Hawking to tell you things don't always add up. Science is just the world as we know it. Humans are usually humble enough to know that there exists that which we do not understand: if something seems impossible, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Phenomena only appear impossible. Phenomenal events, such as stigmata, projected thought, weeping and bleeding images, simply don't fit in with the rest of the world as we know things do. Does this mean the events didn't occur? Many scientific things have miraculous explanations. There is no distinction between 'miracles' and 'science'. Everything in the Universe is really its own miracle. That's how people give meaning to life.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Carlton Lane, Kamuela, Hawaii — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:49:44 GMT

Answers? for STEVE GARMAN that may also be of interest to others and Ai Yu Lian on hidden variables and Einstein

In science, time and length (space) are not defined; instead, science tells us how to measure them and gives the measurment single-unit names, like second and yard, respectively. Things like velocity, energy, etc. (definables) are then defined in terms of the UNDEFINED time and length; velocity is defined as length divided by time with units such as yards/seconds (a dual-unit name). If science should like to define time, the definition would have to be in terms of other "undefined" things. Science recognizes, at the outset, that humans not only in science but in all areas of human endeavor are unable to ultimately define anything; that is, things are defined in terms of other things which are then defined in terms of other things which are then defined in terms of other things and so on until one arrives at something all humans are expected to have a feeling for or some experience with and is, therefore, justifiably left UNDEFINED. Again, bona-fide physicists will tell you how to measure length but NOT what length is (they are willing, able, to tell you how to measure time but not what time is). Should they attempt to tell you what length is (define length) they will need to do it with other words to be left undefined (like "distance") with the hope those left-undefined words will resonate with something in your experience or feelings.

Bona-fide scientists can, therefore, understand why theology (religion) has undefined terms. For example, theology may take God as undefined or define God in terms of things taken as undefinables. For those with no feeling for God or experience with God, theologians may define God in terms of undefined things, things they can hope you have experienced or have feelings for. For example, theologians may define God (or something they wish to convey to you about the word God and how they plan to use it or want you to grasp from their discourse) as that which is infinite, with the expectation that you have had some experience with or feeling for infinite things (perhaps from experience with our counting numbers which you recognize as something infinite, going on forever).

Science has a much easier time in establishing what it will take as "undefinables" (often called "primaries" in physics) because the things it chooses to be involved with and take as primaries are those which practically everyone has some experience with or feeling for, like distance and time. Theologians have much geater difficulty because things like infinity are far less apt to have been in one's experience or feelings besides coming in such widely differing situations. Consider the difficulty of trying to define "love" which is something most theologians may wish to talk about.

It is often claimed that Einstein was wont to say "God had no choice" in many things of physics (one could say that Einstein's "God doesn't play dice with the universe" may also be seen as not giving God a choice), well, theologians who want to talk about INFINITE LOVE (or God's love if God has been defined as that which is infinite) not having any choice will be faced with defining "love" or taking it as undefined.

The ardent lover was clearly correct (as well as romantic) when saying words can not express my love for you. We can see how the prudent scientist would not attempt to dodge the difficulty of defining love by attempting to show how to measure love and would rather leave it as an "undefinable", albeit a far less safe than taking length as a primary (undefinable").

Mass or inertia property is another primary (undefined thing) of physics. It, however, presents physics with greater difficulty than length or time taken as a primary because humans do not recognize it as readily as length or time, but mass (single-unit gram) is still far less problematical than, say, love or infinity. With mass, length and time as primaries, ENERGY (ala Einstein and Newton) may be defined as mass times length squared divided by time squared, e.g. gram times meter squared divided by second squared. The choice of primaries may, of couse be altered; one could take energy as a primary and define mass in terms of energy, length and time as energy times time squared divided by length squared. There are valid arguments for going this non-traditional route including the feeling that many may have more experience with or feeling for energy than mass, but it is not likely to be done because showing how to measure mass (how to use a balance) is simpler than how to measure energy.

We now know that space-time is a reality in our physical universe, not space or time separately, but space-time is not likely to become a primary for physics because we do not have extensive feelings for or experience with space-time the way we do with space alone and time alone.

Ai Yu Lian and Hidden Variables of Einstein

It will most likely take another genius like Einstein or a joint effort to find the theory to remove the contradiction between quantum theory, a theory for the discrete, quanta, and relativity theory, a theory for the continuum. While the hidden variables idea has been shown to be untenable, the wave-particle, position-velocity dilemma and uncertanty still may be resolved if we can ever see around our natural bias. Our natural bias toward seeing space and time rather than space-time became exposed with Einstein's Special Relativity and may be the basis for Einstein hoping to find a hidden variable like space-time which was "hidden" before Special Relativity. While Bohr won so many debates with Einstein in this matter, Bohr turns out to have been in trouble with his ideas that human observers were the cause of the uncertainty of quantum physics. Things in our physical universe are under constant observation by other things in our physical universe regardless of any human presence. Einstein and all bona-fide physicists know that the air in a forest will suffer compressions and rarefactions if a giant tree falls WITHOUT any need for human presence. (N.B. "suffer compressions and expansions" was used instead of "sound waves", because "sound waves" are defined as only those waves able to be heard by human ears and, therefore allows one to say no "sound waves" will occur; the fact that human eyes can't see ultraviolet waves does not prevent such waves from existing in the absence of humans and ultraviolet light is a contradiction if "light" means only waves observable by human eyes, likewise for ultrasound). Human presence is not necessary for the laws of physics to be operating on the moon or the planet Venus. The problem may be arising from the fact that position and velocity just are not things that exist for quantum particles. We try, by our experiments, to FORCE these things (variables) on, say, photons or electrons and they may simply not exist for photons and electrons without our expermental apparatus. When we set up an experiment to force an electron to behave like a wave (detect wave properties, involve velocity), it complies and behaves like a wave. If we set up an experiment to bring out its particle properties, involve position, it complies again. These results cause us to feel the electron is both a particle, has position and a wave, has no position, thereby, making uncertainty come into play due to the contradiction between particle and wave. Therefore, one is prone to ask what is the electron or what properties does it have when we are not watching it, forcing it into what we want. Bohr said that was an invalid question for science (and may be the source for the tree- falling-without-human-presence question, now seen as not a good analogy). Einstein objected due to his fundamental conviction (objective realiy) that the true laws of physics did not depend on human presence for their operation (when said tree falls, the air will undergo compressions and rarefactions without any human presence). Einstein's question about what the electron is when we were not observing it is not resolved in Einstein's physics. Current physics is able to say that "hidden variables" can't be observed. The Bell results preclude it. Thus, we are not going to find some hidden variable different from but similar to, say, position or velocity to resolve the problem. String theory, with its strings that can't be characterized by position or velocity as points can, may be able to provide an answer, but string theory may take a very long time to get adequate experimental, scientific confirmation. Meanwhile we can still enjoy devising our private theories.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

John Curreri, Philadelphia, PA — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:19:24 GMT

If you are reading this, you can't see god because you are not looking in a mirror. God, whatever you may conceive god to be, is part of us, and despite our feelings of our individual identities, we are all part of what makes up god. (and god is not an old man in the sky!)

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 01 May 2007 09:56:36 GMT

Here’s a thought. What if the fabric of space (as per MIT’s String-net liquid theory) had high and low pressure like our atmosphere. Much like a thousand years ago we could not define what air was because we weren’t able to see it, the fabric of space could itself have minor fluctuations. A low pressure might give us the hurricane appearance of a spiral galaxy and high pressures might act like some form of dark energy. I still don’t hear very much about it but isn’t there something called zero point energy that says that even a void has energy? The Z-machine experiment also showed energy coming from "somewhere," so much like air, we know something is there, we just don’t know what it is yet. Maybe the center of the galaxy is like the eye of a hurricane? Matter could be like the condensation of rain drops. Any extra spinning of outer perimeter stars could be the underlying effect of not only gravity but also the fabric in motion.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

Tiwari s c, Varanasi, India — Mon, 07 May 2007 09:10:40 GMT

The question on the time direction is important, but second law thermodynamics has so far remained connected with spacetime at a hypothetical level. A different perspective on time is needed. I invite attention to my book Time-Transcendence-Truth I may also mention that Einstein in his reply to criticisms did try a weak link with second law to escape catastrophic consequences of Godel universe.

Up close with Dr. Hawking

the inventor — Wed, 09 May 2007 00:38:26 GMT

Near Light Speed Travel Possible

Up close with Dr. Hawking

jack lowther grimsby — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:13:09 GMT

prity good