R.I.P. Stephen Hawking

[Clay Pigeon]

In 1999 When Time magazine asked readers to submit nominations for "Person of the Century" I told my ace henchman, Billy Martin "That's a no-brainer. How in Hell can anyone name someone other than Winston Churchill as THE Person of The Twentieth Century?" Being educated well read honest faithful patriotic and of sound mind and body he concurred and offered me a shot of Jack Daniels which I accepted sipped and savored. But three or four weeks later I thought well I'll still go with Winnie the Pooh but I won't take a page from the Unabomber's playbook if Time names Albert Einstein.

There's a handful of possible candidates for the mantle of "Greatest Mind In Theoretical Physics Since Einstein" but the hands-down-hands-up-hands-off consensus is Stephen Hawking.

And...

If Jack were here he'd publish a second edition of Profiles In Courage adding a chapter on the man.

 

[Jim Dandy]

He was overrated. Next!!

 

[RogerB]

He was overrated. Next!!

Actually, ALL theoretical physicists are overrated . . . . as one of my favorite real deal physicists once said to me: "Math does not and cannot 'prove' anything in or of the physical universe; it only measures and quantifies, but it can and does prove itself . . . only itself!"

In actuality, science has done a pretty good job of measuring and quantifying the "stuff" that exists "out there" . . . but in terms of how or when did it get there and what is it of/what is the stuff of it, the theoretical guys are dealing with their own fantasies.

 

[Jim Dandy]

Actually, ALL theoretical physicists are overrated . . . . as one of my favorite real deal physicists once said to me: "Math does not and cannot 'prove' anything in or of the physical universe; it only measures and quantifies, but it can and does prove itself . . . only itself!"

In actuality, science has done a pretty good job of measuring and quantifying the "stuff" that exists "out there" . . . but in terms of how or when did it get there and what is it of/what is the stuff of it, the theoretical guys are dealing with their own fantasies.

Have you ever heard of Bill Gaede? He has proven, to me anyway, that Math still cannot even define what a "point" is.

 

[RogerB]

Well, Jim Dandy, that was hilarious! I loved it.

The prof of the physics course I did yapped on about "the physical universe is constructed with and runs on mathematics!"

Err, ummm, that was the moment I knew he was as flaky as sweet smelling shit! This even while he did do some other good stuff.

R

 

[Helena Handbasket]

I loved Hawking's book, A Brief History Of Time.

Helena

 

[Terril park]

I loved Hawking's book, A Brief History Of Time.

Helena

Not read it. However Discovery TV has has just had
many programmes about him. Love that he looks to
the limits of knowledge of the universe.

I find a flaw.

He says that in the beginning positive matter or energy
separated from from negative matter. And thus places
of positive energy gave rise to places of negative
energy. And this created the universe.

No reason why.

And I believe this violates the second law of
thermodynamics.

Comments?

 

[Jim Dandy]

Well, Jim Dandy, that was hilarious! I loved it.

The prof of the physics course I did yapped on about "the physical universe is constructed with and runs on mathematics!"

Err, ummm, that was the moment I knew he was as flaky as sweet smelling shit! This even while he did do some other good stuff.

R

Ha! I should've remembered this little video, done almost 8 years ago, by Bill Gaede because it is the "perfect tribute" to Hawking:

If you're short on time then scroll to the 7:40 minute and watch the next minute and half until the end for the punchline. Lol...

 

[J. Warbler]

I find a flaw.

He says that in the beginning positive matter or energy
separated from from negative matter. And thus places
of positive energy gave rise to places of negative
energy. And this created the universe.

No reason why.

And I believe this violates the second law of
thermodynamics.

You wouldn't have a link to his comments, would you? It's been a LONG time since I screwed around with Entropy. But when you're dealing with the Second Law, it's always important to take the entire system into account. Otherwise you end up with those arguments about how Evolution violates the Second Law, which is true as long as you ignore the Sun and the rest of the Solar System.

Now, as I recall, matter initially formed during the Inflationary stage of the Universe. And if Expansion equals increasing Entropy, then Inflation would equal MASSIVE increases in Entropy. If this weren't true, then we wouldn't have matter to begin with (I think.) And it seems to me that the formation of matter from energy seems to violate the Second Law much more than merely segregating the matter and the antimatter.

But, thanks to all the Entropy being created by Inflation, all sorts of things are able to happen without threatening the Laws of Thermodynamics.

But I'd love to hear from a Physicist, I am but a lowly Chemist. I don't care how it was made, I just want to blow it up

 

[strativarius]

Not read it. However Discovery TV has has just had
many programmes about him. Love that he looks to
the limits of knowledge of the universe.

I find a flaw.

He says that in the beginning positive matter or energy
separated from from negative matter. And thus places
of positive energy gave rise to places of negative
energy. And this created the universe.

No reason why.

And I believe this violates the second law of
thermodynamics.

Comments?

Terril park educates Stephen Hawking, the one-time Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge university - a position formerly held by Isaac Newton, on the subject of cosmology. Best laugh I've had in a good while. Breathtaking arrogance.

 

[Terril park]

You wouldn't have a link to his comments, would you? It's been a LONG time since I screwed around with Entropy. But when you're dealing with the Second Law, it's always important to take the entire system into account. Otherwise you end up with those arguments about how Evolution violates the Second Law, which is true as long as you ignore the Sun and the rest of the Solar System.

Now, as I recall, matter initially formed during the Inflationary stage of the Universe. And if Expansion equals increasing Entropy, then Inflation would equal MASSIVE increases in Entropy. If this weren't true, then we wouldn't have matter to begin with (I think.) And it seems to me that the formation of matter from energy seems to violate the Second Law much more than merely segregating the matter and the antimatter.

But, thanks to all the Entropy being created by Inflation, all sorts of things are able to happen without threatening the Laws of Thermodynamics.

But I'd love to hear from a Physicist, I am but a lowly Chemist. I don't care how it was made, I just want to blow it up

I saw a programme on BBC or discovery so can't give a link.
Their is lots of items on U-Tube. This may include what I saw.

 

[Terril park]

Terril park educates Stephen Hawking, the one-time Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge university - a position formerly held by Isaac Newton, on the subject of cosmology. Best laugh I've had in a good while. Breathtaking arrogance.

No doubt my knowledge of physics and entropy is not
the greatest. I was raising a discussion point in the hopes
of gaining further enlightenment. You didn't respond to this point
but gave logical fallacies. Ad Hominem and argument from authority.

 

[strativarius]

No doubt my knowledge of physics and entropy is not
the greatest. I was raising a discussion point in the hopes
of gaining further enlightenment. You didn't respond to this point
but gave logical fallacies. Ad Hominem and argument from authority.

Hawking's work has been peer reviewed to within an inch of its life by the finest mathematical minds on the planet. But you 'find a flaw'. You can barely produce a sentence in English without a spelling mistake. Don't make me laugh.

 

[phenomanon]

Not read it. However Discovery TV has has just had
many programmes about him. Love that he looks to
the limits of knowledge of the universe.

I find a flaw.

He says that in the beginning positive matter or energy
separated from from negative matter. And thus places
of positive energy gave rise to places of negative
energy. And this created the universe.

No reason why.

And I believe this violates the second law of
thermodynamics.

Comments?

So did that make this "a two terminal universe"?

 

[J. Warbler]

I saw a programme on BBC or discovery so can't give a link.
Their is lots of items on U-Tube. This may include what I saw.

Thanks for the video.....unfortunately.....all I get is "This Video Contains Content From Discovery Communications Who Has Blocked It In Your Country On Copyright Grounds."

Sigh.....

 

[Terril park]

This describes the second law. I don't think it is about a two terminal universe.

An implication is that the universe will end with a heat death
where everything is the same temperature. An implication of that is that without any input of other energy hot objects won't get hotter and cold ones colder.

The idea that positive energy would accumulate in one
place and negative energy in another separate place seems
to me to violate this law.

https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html

 

[J. Warbler]

An implication is that the universe will end with a heat death
where everything is the same temperature. An implication of that is that without any input of other energy hot objects won't get hotter and cold ones colder.

Well, now you are talking about the end of the universe. And one theory for the end of the universe does involve a heat death. As you say, this only requires that everything in the universe will be at the same temperature, which is generally assumed to be pretty cold. Since energy flows from hot objects to cold objects, all energy flow would stop at this point. With no energy flow, entropy will be at it's maximum possible value, and nothing can happen after that.

But I don't think anyone is arguing that matter and antimatter will segregate at the end of the universe. Because that segregation already happened at the beginning. Our universe (which is to say everything that we can detect with any sort of instrument)(which is to say a sphere with the Earth at the center and a radius of: the age of the universe in years multiplied by the speed of light in km/year) already consists of 99.99999 (I don't know how many 9s) percent ordinary, positive matter. And the antimatter that does exist comes from radioactive decay. It is still being created, but it tends to be very short lived because it stops existing as soon as it comes into contact with positive matter.

Also, and this is why I wondered what exactly Hawking said, I believe that the theory that matter and antimatter separated into different regions is not the preferred theory. I believe that the preferred theory is that in the very early stages of the universe huge numbers of unstable atoms (baryons) were formed. These early atoms were equally divided between matter and antimatter.

Then, as inflation slowed, there was no longer enough energy to support these high-energy, unstable particles, so they began to decay. Something (several mechanisms have been proposed, but frankly, nobody knows at this point) caused decay into positive matter to be slightly favored over decay into antimatter. This would result in an excess of ordinary matter.

Then, matter/antimatter collisions would cause the destruction of all of the antimatter and most of the matter. But, of course, some ordinary matter would be left. And that left-over ordinary matter is the universe that we all know and love today.

Of course, it's possible that L. Ron Hubbard simply didn't like antimatter. So he postulated it away.

 

[Jim Dandy]

...

 

[Clay Pigeon]

He was overrated. Next!!

You can make case for him being overrated as a physicist but...

Jee-YAY-ziss!!!

What a paragon of human courage!!!


So...


Next?


How 'bout this:

Birdwood's Theorem:

Stephen Hawking's dictum as to the impossibility of time machines may or may not prove true but the truth/lie paradox notwithstanding, 2WC across time is possible and has been done.