Hawking's quantum universe

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:11:42 GMT

As an outside observer, I have been anticipating a dramatic shift in cosmology for some time. It seems at least some observational evidence (distant supernova that have heavy elements in the exploding star's atmosphere as well as the “increasing” rate of expansion) has come up counter to expectations and all cosmologist seem to want to do is explain them away with hypothetical dark energy (a “fudge factor” as Einstein once put it). Much as we saw a recent shift from the much hyped string theory to the new “membrane theory” it just stands to reason that we really don’t have a true grasp of the situation.

Hawking’s new theory seems to be a rather sharp contrast and I’d suspect far grander swings will likely emerge from this bold new step. Just look at how much more dynamic the universe gets by adding the influence of just one more special dimension. What appears as the mysterious force of “gravity” in three dimensions, for example, could just be emblematic of the fact that everything is actually part of a "unified whole" (and thus would naturally belong together) in a fourth special dimension!

Kudos for Hawking speaking out on other matters of importance! Nobody should be silent in such desperate yet promising times!

Hawking's quantum universe

Adam, Brisbane, Queensland — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 05:16:27 GMT

Hi Alan

Chris's comment is not bad, though referring to 'dark energy' as a 'fudge factor' is just churlish. It has real effects even if we don't see it, just like Neptune before we turned a telescope towards it, or the Earth's core.

As for 'brane theory' - it tells us our cosmos is a 'plane' in another spatial dimension, a part of a bigger whole just as the writer seems to indicate of Hawking's ideas. Where's the difference?

Hawking's new ideas turn the quantum horse-and-cart around, looking back from the result to the beginning, rather than guessing from the beginning to a hoped for result. Seems more likely to generate real predictions, as he seems to have already done.

Hawking's quantum universe

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, MD — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:07:09 GMT

Dark "whatever" is a label to cover "I don't know what is going on". As soon as we do know what it is we can drop the label.

Thanks for the link to the paper! Always better to read the original than getting it filtered through even the best interpreters (even you).

In as much as we are standing at a point in time allowing for a view nearly back to the "Dark Age" Hawking's approach strikes me as the more logical of the procedures. Forensic work starts with the results and works backward to the root causes. Apply the "Engineer's Test". Does it work consistently? If so, it is good and correct. If not, modify or junk and re-do. What is different is that unlike scientists engineers really don't care why, only that they can consistently predict the behavior of the design and design the behavior.

Gee, maybe we will, at last, get an intelligent designer, after all!

Hawking's quantum universe

Nealon L. Dumas Homosassa, Florida — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:39:56 GMT

Nothing can be destroyed, only changed. Everything will come back to atoms, even a black hole. Pure energy is thought, that is what all matter become, even light.

Hawking's quantum universe

Larry L. Hanks, Harlingen, TX — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:01:39 GMT

You know, it's amazing that I've yet to see anyone stumble over my theory. That's for the best because I'm an EMT, not a scientist, and I'd probably need therapy if someone else came up with it (much like folks who "invented" something years ago, only to find it acted up on yesterday). I wish Hawking lived next door, at least I trust him to put my name as a footnote on it. As it is, Hawking does *not* live next door, and I have to sit and wait for someone else to stumble over the obvious. Such is life.

Hawking's quantum universe

Andrew Kirk, Taji, Iraq — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 23:31:25 GMT

Living in a three dimensional world makes it extremely difficult trying to grasp the knowledge of the universe(s). "We are prisoners of our own world," meaning no matter how hard we think and believe our new found theories, there will never be any way to prove them, or truly understand them. Just like religion. Keep plugging away cosmologists, but my theory is that it is a lost cause to find proof. I am not one to give up, but how can we see past a three dimensional world into the forth, fifth... fiftieth? One just has to have little faith in the unknown I guess.

Hawking's quantum universe

a p garcia, san benito, texas — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:56:52 GMT

Look he has Lou Gerig's disease and has lived far longer than anyone else, maybe its a world record. When I first knew of him, he had limited leg movement. Now he has none and can only talk with electronic means. I serious doubt he can read a book on anything without the help of other people turning pages and selecting books for him and I doubt he selects the books he reads because he can't get up and choose it himself. For this reason, I don't put much credence on what he says about global warming or global cooling. Granted he is a brillant man, but his days of fame have come and gone.

Hawking's quantum universe

Chris Eldridge — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:51:40 GMT

Andrew, I totally agree that finding physical proof for a fourth spacial dimension is really a contradition of terms and likely impossible, but that does not prevent us from at least thinking about it. In the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan (The Edge of forever episode) they actually discuss this topic.

By holding up a clear plastic cube and shining a light through it onto a desk, Dr. Sagan shows how we can see that shadow of a three dimentional object in two dimensions. We've certainly all drawn what looks like a 3d box on a piece of paoper, but it certainly is not a true representation as all the sides of the box are not equal and all angles are not right angles. That is the price you pay by losing a dimension.

Ok... Carl then goes on and holds up a four dimensional object - or at least the "shadow" of one in three dimensions. He held up a clear plasic hypercube (search images on Yahoo). It is not a true representation. Like before (in the drawing of the box example), all sides in this three dimensional representation of a hypercube are not equal and all angles are not right angles as they really would be in four dimensions. But it is what we would see if we shined a light though a four dimensional object and cast a shadow on our three dimensional space...

Hope I explained this ok... It was my favorit of all Cosmos episodes and that part was especially moving for me when I was 12ish...

Hawking's quantum universe

Rodney L. Morrill Jr.; Jacksonville, FL — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:52:32 GMT

Just curious but have we abandoned the ideology that we in fact live in four dimensions?...does space/time not consist of hieght,width, depth and time?...an object is not stationary (only appears so to an observer who is moving at a relatively simular velocity/trajectory)...Does not matter break down (decay)?...Does the idea of universal entropy not dictate that the presence ov time is necessary?...if an object is observed at a defined place, will it be there indiffently or was it always there?...
What is the reference foci for the measure ov time?...The big bang?...If so how can we really expect to understand anything outside this foci (what happened at the moment ov the big bang or before it)?...And what ov the fact that imperical science is fundementally flawed since it is based on numerical structures that has little oddities such as pi?...find the absolute center ov a circle using numbers...you can't but yet the center ov the circle does exist...I fear that science does not hold the neccesary mechanics because it does not have the needed reference points to explain (or truely examine) the whole ov existance...I believe that the best science can do is provide formuli for given instances and circumstancies...The multi-verse is too vast and complex to make a formula to expain each object and/or event seperately...Those formuli can only accurately predect the results ov the examed event were to accure again with the same circumstances...not very probable...
I'm not saying science is useless, most varibles are negligable on a large scale...however, when you get down to the scale ov matters involved in particle physics, these little discrepiencies become astronomical in their influences...

Well, just my 2 particles ov thought on the matter...yeah, that's a pun...
post script: Please excuse my spelling...not my strong suit...
@~R~

Hawking's quantum universe

Mike Kennedy, Orlando, FL — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:53:05 GMT

The actual sum of all atoms in the universe, multi-verse, flexi-verse...given its seemingly infinite abilities to reconstruct, multiplied by itself, then add in the expotentiallity of that all new sum--that's the possible number of universes available on any given plane of existence or existences. The "Dimensionality Paradigm" will sooner or later be defined by the persons or entities regarding that montage of probabilities. The human mind only has finite limitations and newer or older methods of of problem-solving will eventually emerge to shed a little light. I like that Faith factor...hope is a strong motivator. While you're calculating the number of combined atoms...give a little thought as to the amounts of distributed energy flowing between them, arising from their exposure to one another, their annihiliation quotient--the question then obviously shifts from one of the "Big Bang", to more of: the Genesis Origins of Energetic Fold in the first place. Solve that, you've come a long way to understanding everything else. Interesting that Hawking, these days, speaks so eloquently in terms of goals and death. I think he is genuinely concerned for the fate of the world and is looking for an exit plan for Earth beings and himself.

Hawking's quantum universe

Felipe Zubia — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:50:21 GMT

Maybe black matter is a shadow of the 4th dimension

Hawking's quantum universe

Campbell Laughlin — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:45:41 GMT

Before something can be somewhere, it firstly has to be. The first dimension is therefore simply existence. The alternative is nothing, not empty space, just nothing.
This first dimension , along with the known spacial and temporal dimensions x, y, z and t seem to be sufficient to answer the so far unanswered questions. Existence of this first dimension can be proven using known facts about radiation and some common sense. Visualising it does require stretching of the brain. Putting mathematics to it is beyond me, although I can provide a verbal model.

Hawking's quantum universe

dan winter, byron, australia — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:08:50 GMT

www.goldenmean.info/goldenproof

Dan Winter- publishes his new mathematic 'golden' proof: - How Golden Ratio (Phase Conjugate / Fractality) Causes Gravity
GOLDEN RATIO radii of HYDROGEN - actually are a PERFECT MULTIPLE of GOLDEN RATIO times the PLANCK LENGTH. There could be no other explanation than it is this GOLDEN RATIO - that holds these waves of charge together! (ultimate global scaling)
- Producing the electrical centripedal force - called GRAVITY!